JUDGMENT : The 1st petitioner was elected as President and the 2nd petitioner as Vice-President of Karampudi Mandal Parishad, Guntur District, in the elections held in June 2006. The Mandal Parishad comprises of 14 members. 9 members of the Mandal Parishad, respondents 4 to 12 herein, submitted requisitions in prescribed forms on 5.8.2008, with a prayer to convene the meeting of the Mandal Parishad, to discuss the motions of No-confidence, against the petitioners. Acting on the same, the 2nd respondent issued notices, under prescribed forms, and convened meeting of the Mandal Parishad on 25.8.2008. The motions of No-confidence, against the petitioners, were carried out, and the results were declared. Subsequently, steps were initiated for filling up the resultant vacancies. The petitioners challenge the action of the 2nd respondent, in declaring that the motions of No-confidence against the petitioners were carried out. It is stated that two-third majority of the total members is required to carry out a motion of No-confidence, and though two-third of 14 comes to 9.33, only 9 members have voted in favour of the motions. The petitioners place reliance upon the judgment of this court in GOGINENI KOTESWARA RAO v. GOVERNMENT OF A.P (1999(3) ALD 363). Sri N. Vidya Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that two-third of the total membership of the Mandal Parishad, viz. 14, comes to 9.33, and the fraction is required to be rounded off to 1, taking the number to 10, and viewed in this context, the motions of No-confidence against the petitioners, cannot be said to have been carried out. He contends that a Division Bench of this court in Gogineni Koteswara Rao's case1, clearly held that any fraction has to be rounded off, to the next integer, and the result declared by the 2nd respondent after conducting the meeting is untenable in law. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submits that Section 245 of the Panchayat Raj Act (for short "the Act") was amended in the year 2000, by adding explanation to sub-section (2), and hardly any doubt is left. He contends that any fraction, below 0.5, is to be ignored, whereas, the one, above 0.5 has to be taken as one. The short question that arises for consideration in this case is, as regards the manner in which the fraction of a number, representing the simple/two-third majority of the Mandal Parishad, is to be reckoned. He contends that any fraction, below 0.5, is to be ignored, whereas, the one, above 0.5 has to be taken as one. The short question that arises for consideration in this case is, as regards the manner in which the fraction of a number, representing the simple/two-third majority of the Mandal Parishad, is to be reckoned. It is not in dispute that Karampudi Mandal Parishad consists of 14 members. Under Rule 2 of the Rules published in G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 28.4.1998, a requisition for convening the meeting to take up the motion of No-confidence can be given, by not less than half of the total members. Since requisition, in the instant case, was given by 9 members, there is no dispute as to compliance with this requirement. The section, as well as the rule, are clear to the effect that a motion can be carried, only with the support of two-third of the total number of members of the concerned local body. The two-third of 14 works out to 9.33. When it was enacted first, the section was silent, as to the manner in which a fraction must be treated. It was only in the rules that a provision was added to the effect that any fraction shall be treated as 1. Instances have come into existence, wherein even a smaller fraction was required to be treated as 1, and motions of No-confidence, either were not carried through, or were declared untenable by this court, by treating even a fraction of less than 0.5 also as 1. The judgment of this court in Gogineni Koteswara Rao's case (supra), was rendered at a time, when the section was silent and the method of dealing with the fractions was provided with under the rules alone. The rule was held not ultra virus to the section, and full benefit thereof was extended to the aggrieved parties. With a view to bring about certainty in the matter, the legislature stepped in and added explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 245 of the Act. It reads as under: "Explanation: For the purposes of this section, in the determination of two-thirds of the total number of members, any fraction below 0.5 shall be ignored and any fraction of 0.5 or above shall be taken as one." With the addition of this explanation, no uncertainty exists now. It reads as under: "Explanation: For the purposes of this section, in the determination of two-thirds of the total number of members, any fraction below 0.5 shall be ignored and any fraction of 0.5 or above shall be taken as one." With the addition of this explanation, no uncertainty exists now. The amendment, if at all anything, has only incorporated the well recognized principle of rounding off any fraction above 0.5, to the next integer, and ignoring any fraction below 0.5. The petitioners are not able to demonstrate as to how the explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 245 is illegal, or unconstitutional. The petitioners cannot take advantage of a judgment, which was rendered at a time, when the provisions were differing in their purport, once the legislature had enacted a specific provision, as to the manner in which a fraction is to be treated. The petitioners cannot be permitted to plead otherwise. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.