R.K. Dash, J.
1. The petitioner in the present application filed under Articles 136 and 127 of the Constitution of India has challenged the action of the Stale and its functionaries reserving three constitueneies for women belonging to backward class of citizens in Narsinghpur Panchayal Samiti and consequently has prayed to quash the final list of the constituencies, Anncxure 3.
2. To put shortly, the case of the petitioner is that there are in total 26 Constituencies in Narasinghpur Panchayat Samiti and of them 6 are reserved for scheduled castes (4 male and 2women). I for scheduled tribe (male), 7 for backward class citizens (5 male and 2 women) and 12 for general candidates (7 male and 5 women). Preliminary publication of the it of the constituencies as aforesaid was made which is in accordance with the provisions of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti (Amendment) Act, 1995 (for short, 'the Act'). Subsequently the Collector, Cuttack-opposite party no. 2 published a revised and final list of the constituencies wherein it was indicated that Alara Gram Panchayat has been reserved for women belonging to backward class citizens. In the said revised list, so far as backward citizens are concerned, out of 7 seats in the preliminary notification though 2 were shown to have been reserved for women belonging to that class, but in the final list the number was increased to 3 which according to the petitioner is in violation of the statutory provisions contained in the Act. It is urged that as provided in Section 15 (2) (b-2), as nearly as may be but not less than one third of the total number of seats reserved under Clause (b-1) shall be reserved for women belonging to the backward class of citizens and by applying the said provision out of total 7 seats reserved for backward class citizens, one third scats meant for women comes to 2.33. Since 0.33 is less than 1/2 (half), the same should have been excluded and the total number of seats as per the preliminary notification reserved for women belonging to other backward class citizens, i.e. 2 seats should have been retained and not 3 seats. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Collector while bringing out change in the preliminary notification did not invite any objection or suggestion and without giving any opportunity to the general public to have their say in the proposed change published the final list, Annexure-3, which being contrary to the statutory provision is liable to be quashed.
3. The opposite parties on being noticed, have filed their return. While not disputing the legal position regarding reservation of seats for women belonging to other backward class, as pleaded by the petitioner, their case is that the total number of seats meant for other backward class citizens being 7, one third thereof meant for women of the said class comes to 2 which is less than one third of the total seats. Therefore, the 0.33 has been rounded up to ' 1', as a consequence 3 seats have been reserved for women belonging to other backward class of the citizens, and this has been done after inviting objections as per Annexure 4,publication whereof was made in the notice board of the Sub-Collector and the Colleetorale. It was stipulated in the said notice that objection, if any, may be made on or before 28-12-1995. Since within the lime stipulated no objection was received, final publication was made. In the circumstances, it is urged that there being no merit in the writ application should be dismissed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents annexed thereto.
5. The undisputed factual position emerging from the pleadings of the parties is that out of 26 constituencies in Narsinghpur Panchayat Samiti, 7 are meant for other backward class of citizens out of which as provided under law not less than one-third are to be reserved for women belonging to the same class and accordingly when calculated it comes to 2.33. The grievance of the petitioner is that 0.33 being less than 0.5, the total seats should have been limited to 2. On the other hand, contention of the opposite parties is that if 2 seats are reserved for women belonging to other backward class of citizens, as urged by the petitioner and the fraction figure is ignored, then it comes to less than one third of the total number of 7 seats and therefore, change was brought out in the final publication after due notice and 3 seats are reserved for women.
6. Section 16 (2) (b-2) of the Act which has bearing on the issue reads as under :
'(b-2). As nearly as may be but not less than one third of the total number of seats reserved under clause (b-1) shall be reserved for women belonging to the backward class of citizens;xx xx xx xx'
The expression 'not less than one third of the total number of seats' means that total number of seats to be reserved for the women belonging to the backward class of citizens shall not be less than one third of the total number of seats belonging to the said class. In other words, if it exceeds a little more than one third it satisfies the statutory provision and no fault can be found with the authorities for doing so. By saying so we may not be understood to have laid down that one-third can even go up to half of the total seats. In the present case, as stated earlier, one third seats out of 7 comes to 3.33 and so, if this fraction 0.33 is rounded up to 'I' (one), the total seats reserved for the women comes to 3 for which no fault can be found with the State authorities since it is interms of the statutory provision as extracted above. However, if the statutory provision would have been to the effect that the reservation of seats for the women should be restricted to one third, then in that case petitioner's contention could have been accepted and the reservation of 3 seats could have been reduced to 2. But that being not the provision, inasmuch as the mandate of the statute being that not less than one third of the total number of seals shall be reserved for women, we are not inclined to interfere with the action of the State and its functionaries.
7. In the result, the writ application fails and the same is dismissed. No cost.