JUDGMENT 1. Respondent No.4 is a Gram Panchayat. It has 18 members. Petitioners were elected as members of the 4th respondent during May 2010. Smt. Thimmakka was elected as the President and Sri. Parameshwarappa K.E., was elected as Vice President of the 4th respondent – Kanchipura Gram Panchayat on 29.06.2010. On 30.12.2013, 14 members of the Panchayat, including the petitioners, presented a notice before the 1st respondent, with an intention to move a Motion of No-Confidence against the President - Smt. Thimmakka. The 1st respondent gave notice under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994(for short, ‘the Rules’), to the members of the Panchayat on 02.01.2014 fixing 20.01.2014 as the date for the meeting of the Panchayat to consider the Motion of No-Confidence. 2. A complaint lodged for the offences punishable under S.365 r/w 34 of IPC having been registered in Crime No.7/2014 and the FIR having been submitted to JMFC Court at Hosadurga, after sending a representation dated 17.01.2014 to the 1st respondent by RPAD seeking to adjourn the meeting of the Gram Panchayat scheduled to be held on 20.01.2014 i.e., to consider No-Confidence Motion, these writ petitions were filed on 18.01.2014, to direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation sent on 17.01.2014 and to direct him to adjourn the meeting of the Kanchipura Gram Panchayat scheduled to be held on 20.01.2014. 3. Sri Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri K.P. Jayasimha, learned advocate for the petitioners vehemently contended that in the absence of the members who have moved the Motion of No-Confidence, in view of their kidnapping, and as no useful purpose would be served, the 1st respondent be directed to adjourn the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, scheduled to take place today at 12.30 p.m. 4. Sri P.B. Bajentri, learned AGA, on the other hand contended that the relief prayed in the writ petitions being contrary to the Rules, the writ petitions may be dismissed. 5. Petitioners along with 12 others have submitted a notice in Form-I under Rule 3(1) with an intention to make the Motion under the proviso to S.49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’). 5. Petitioners along with 12 others have submitted a notice in Form-I under Rule 3(1) with an intention to make the Motion under the proviso to S.49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’). The 1st respondent has given the notice in Form-II under Rule 3(2), to the members, by convening the meeting for consideration of the said motion in the Office of the 4th respondent - Gram Panchayat on 20.01.2014. 6. The short question for consideration is ‘whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to the 1st respondent to adjourn the meeting convened for the purpose of considering the motion made under Sub Rule (2) of Rule 3?’ 7. In order to answer the said question, it is necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions. S.49 of the Act reads as follows: “49. Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat.- Every Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of the Gram Panchayat at a meeting specially convened for the purpose in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed; Provided that no such resolution shall be moved unless notice of the resolution is signed by not less than one-third of the total number of members and at least ten days notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution. Provided further that no resolution expressing want of confidence against an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, shall be moved within one year from the date of his election; Provided also that where a resolution expressing want of confidence in any Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha has been considered and negatived by a Gram Panchayat a similar resolution in respect of the same Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall not be given notice of, or moved, within one year from the date of the decision of the Gram Panchayat.” Rule 3 to the extent relevant, reads as follows: “3. Motion of No-confidence.- (1) A written notice of intention to make the motion under the proviso to S.49 shall be in Form I signed by not less than one-third of the total number of members together with a copy of the proposed motion shall be delivered in person by any two of the members signing the notice to the Assistant Commissioner. (2) The Assistant Commissioner shall thereafter convene a meeting for the consideration of the said motion at the office of the Gram Panchayat on the date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-rule (1) was delivered to him. He shall give to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting in Form II: Provided that where the holding of such meeting is stayed by an order of a Court, the Assistant Commissioner shall adjourn the said meeting and shall hold the adjourned meeting on a date not later than thirty days from the date on which he receives the intimation about the vacation of stay, after giving to the members, a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such adjourned meeting. (3) A notice in Form II shall be given to every member including the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha.- (a) by delivering or tendering the said notice to such member; or (b) if such member is not found, by leaving such notice at his last known place of residence or business within the Gram Panchayat or by giving or tendering the same to some adult member or servant of his family; or (c) by registered posts; or (d) if none of the means aforesaid be available, by affixing such notice on conspicuous part of the house, if any, in which the member is known to have last resided or carried on business within the Gram Panchayat. (4) x x x x (5) Save as otherwise provided in the Act or these rules, a meeting convened for the purpose of considering a motion under sub-rule (2) shall not for any reason be adjourned. (6) If there is no quorum, within one hour after the time appointed for the meeting, the meeting shall stand dissolved and the notice given under sub-rule (1) shall lapse.” (italicised for emphasis) 8. (6) If there is no quorum, within one hour after the time appointed for the meeting, the meeting shall stand dissolved and the notice given under sub-rule (1) shall lapse.” (italicised for emphasis) 8. Sub Rule (1) of Rule 3 provides for issue of written notice of intimation to make the motion and it should be signed by the one-third of the total number of the members of the Panchayat and should be delivered in person by any of the two persons signing the notice, to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner, on receipt of such notice has not been given any discretion in the matter. He shall convene a meeting within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice under Sub Rule (1) by him. He shall give 15 days’ notice to the Members of the Panchayat, of the meeting. Only in the event of Court passing an order of stay with regard to convening of the meeting, the meeting cannot take place. Otherwise, the Assistant Commissioner has been empowered either not to call for the meeting or to adjourn the meeting, as is clear from the Sub Rule (5). The exception can be found in the Sub Rule (6) i.e., after convening of the meeting for a period of one hour if the requisite number of members constituting the quorum are not present, then meeting shall stand dissolved and the notice given under Sub-Rule (1) shall lapse. Sub-Rule (3) deals with the procedure to be followed when a meeting is convened. Sub-Rules (9), (10) and (11) deal with the consequences of the Motion of the meeting. 9. The prayer in these writ petitions runs counter to sub-Rule (5) of Rule 3. The question is whether it is permissible to direct the statutory authority under the Act i.e., the 1st respondent to act contrary to sub-Rule (5) of Rule 3. The power under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution is designed to effectuate the law, to enforce the rule of law and to ensure that the authorities and the organs of the State act in accordance with law. Writ jurisdiction cannot be permitted to be invoked for directing a statutory authority to act contrary to law. When the Court is approached by a party to do justice, the Court should ensure that it must act according to law, not otherwise. 10. In STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS Vs. Writ jurisdiction cannot be permitted to be invoked for directing a statutory authority to act contrary to law. When the Court is approached by a party to do justice, the Court should ensure that it must act according to law, not otherwise. 10. In STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS Vs. HARISH CHANDRA AND OTHERS, (1996) 9 SCC 309 , with regard to issuance of the writ of mandamus, Apex Court has held as follows: “10……Under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoyed by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law……” (emphasis supplied) 11. In RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER Vs. DIAMOND & GEM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER, (2013) 5 SCC 470 , Apex Court in the matter of issuance of the writ of mandamus has held as follows: “22……In order to maintain the writ of mandamus, the first and foremost requirement is that the petition must not be frivolous, and must be filed in good faith. Additionally, the applicant must make a demand which is clear, plain and unambiguous. It must be made to an officer having the requisite authority to perform the act demanded. Furthermore, the authority against whom mandamus is issued, should have rejected the demand earlier. Therefore, a demand and its subsequent refusal, either by words, or by conduct, are necessary to satisfy the court that the opposite party is determined to ignore the demand of the applicant with respect to the enforcement of his legal right……” (emphasis supplied) 12. In this case, the 1st respondent has acted in terms of the provision under Rule 3, in the matter of convening the meeting. The meeting having been convened for the purpose of considering the motion made under sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3, cannot for any reason be adjourned in view of the mandate of sub-Rule (5). In this case, the 1st respondent has acted in terms of the provision under Rule 3, in the matter of convening the meeting. The meeting having been convened for the purpose of considering the motion made under sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3, cannot for any reason be adjourned in view of the mandate of sub-Rule (5). The 1st respondent has not been vested with the power to consider the representation dated 17.01.2014 of the petitioners. When he has no authority to perform the requisitioned act, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued compelling to perform an Act, that too, contrary to sub-Rule (5) of Rule 3. The power under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to compel the 1st respondent, the statutory authority, to act illegally i.e., contrary to the Rules. The writ petitions are misconceived and hence, cannot be entertained. Consequently, the petitions are rejected. Sri P.B. Bajentri is permitted to file memo of appearance in four weeks.