BIBHUTI KESHARI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the present application filed under Arts. 126 and 127 of the Constitution of India has challenged the action of the State and its functionaries reserving three constituencies for women belonging to backward class of citizens in Narsinghpur Panchayat Samiti and consequently has prayed to quash the final list of the constituencies, Annexure 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 2 women), 1 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 list 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 seats 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 Collectorate. It was stipulated in the said notice that objection, if any, may be made on or before 28-12-1995. Since within the time 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.