M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, a resident and voter of ilkal Town, Bijapur Dist. has questioned the legality of de - limitation of territorial division of the Ilkal Town Municipal council made as per the notification dated 1. 6. 1968 (Annexure-C) for the purpose of holding election to the Municipal Council. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the said notification, one seat for women in each of the constituencies Nos. IV, V, VI and VII has been reserved. The contention of the petitioner is that the women population in territorial division No. VII was the lowest, but, neverthless a seat for women was reserved in the said constituency instead of reserving a seat for women in territorial division no. 1 in which the women population was more. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has furnished a statement giving the particulars of the total population, the total number of women and othei particulars in respect of the territorial divisions. The statement reads : "statement showing the details of population, voters reservation of seats etc. , for the reconstitution of Town Municipal Council, Ilkal under the Mysore municipalities Act, 1964. Territorial Dn. No. Population as 1971 for census population Territorial Dn. No. Population As 1971 for census Population No. of voters as per voters list of Assembly Constituency Allocation of seats Reserved SC. ST. Women. now in force Gen. SC. Women Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I 4024 756 1953 2174 2 1 3 II 4061 1913 2198 3 3 III 4075 1948 2192 3 3 IV 3990 2165 2065 2 1 3 V 5221 2488 2718 4 4 VI 5076 2482 2676 4 4 VII 3567 75 1752 1968 3 3 30014 831 14701 16291 21 1 1 23 2. Average population per seat 1305. Sd/- President, TMC, Ilkal". ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the total number of women in territorial division No. VII was 1752 whereas the total number of women in territorial division No. I was 1953 and therefore, a seat for women could have been reserved oniy in the 1st division and not in the VII division. He pointed out that other three seats have been rightly reserved in constituencies wherein the women population was more. He pointed out that other three seats have been rightly reserved in constituencies wherein the women population was more. The reservation of seat for women in the VII division, the learned counsel says is violative of Art. 14. ( 5 ) IN support of the above submission the learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in WP No. 3528 of 1968 (1) and the decision in Puttappa v. Dy. Commissioner (2 ). Puttappa's (2) case related to the reservation of seats to the schedule castes. In the said case with reference to the question of allotment of reserved seat to a constituency, the Court said thus :"the Act does not direct the Deputy commr. to risks reservations for the members of the scheduled castes in any particular constituency and an elected member of the village panchayat whether she belongs to a scheduled caste or not, fuctions as such member for the whole of the pachayat area and not merely in respect of the constituency from which she is elected. But it is elementary that a reservation for persons falling within a special classification should ordinarily be made in the area in which there is their preponderance, and so, the selection of an area which they do not inhabit or in which their member is so small that the very purpose of the reservation stands defeated, becomes defective for that reason and is liable to be quashed". The above observations were reiterated and followed in WP No. 3528/1968 (1) with reference to the allotment of seat in favour of women. ( 6 ) THERE can be no doubt that the principle laid down in the above case applies in relation to the allotment of reserved seats whether it is for schedule castes or for woman. But the observation made therein itself makes it amply clear that unless the disparity is writ large in that, the population of the clasi of people for whose benefit the reservation is made, is too small in the division in which the seat is reserved compared to another in which such population is quite large, it would not be a case of violation of Art. 14 calling for interference by the Court. ( 7 ) IN the present case, the facts furnished by the petitioner in Annexure-A itself disclose that the allotment of seat for women in divisions IV, V, VI and VII cannot at all be regarded as arbitrary. In fact, in respect of the constituencies Nos. IV, V and VI the 1 arned counsel for the petitioner himself submitted that the allotment of seat made is correct. ( 8 ) SRI Somayaji, learned High Court government Pleader also explained the basis of reservation. ( 9 ) THE facts disclosed and the submission made reveal the following aspects: (i) The number of women in division no. VII is 1752 whereas the number of women in division No. I is 1983. The difference is only about 231. (ii) As pointed out by the learned counsel for the State, the basis for making of allotment of seat for women has been the percentage of women compared to the total population in the particular division. On that basis the learned counsel pointed out in division No. VII there were 1953 women out of 4024 (a little less than 49% ). (iii) In respect of division No. I out of. three seats one seat has been reserved for scheduled castes and two are general. In division No. VII one seat is reserved for women and two are general. If. one seat for women is reserved in division No. 1, then division No. I will have only one general seat. ( 10 ) ON consideration of the above information revealed from Annexure-A and the explanation furnished by the Government Pleader, I am unable to agree that the reservation of one seat for women in division No. VII is arbitrary so as to violate Art. 14 of the Constitution. ( 11 ) THE petition is, therefore, rejected. ( 12 ) SRI B. i. Somayaji. learned High court Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance for respondents in two weeks. --- *** --- .