ORDER 1. What is challenged in this writ filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is an order of Commissioner dated 22.7.2002 (Annexure P-11) whereby application made by the petitioner under section 28 ( 4) of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam has been rejected. 2. The issue involved in the said application was very short. Petitioner was holding the post of Vice-President in Janpad Panchayat Rajgarh. She faced no-confidence motion on 4.12.2001 successfully. As a result, she was removed from the post. It is this removal, petitioner challenged by Submitting an application before the Commissioner. As observed supra, by impugned order, the application was rejected, thereby upholding the no-confidence motion against the petitioner, giving rise to challenge in this writ. 3. Heard Ku. V. Kasrekar, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record of the case, I find no merit in the writ. 5. The only ground on which the no-confidence motion was challenged was that two councillors had not participated in the said meeting. It is this question which was probed on facts by the Commissioner who called the reports from the Collector and after taking into account the statements of parties and report, concluded that complaint made by the petitioner has no substance. It was held that the entire l7 councillors out of total 23, which constituted more than 2/3rd strength, had attended the meeting and hence, the NCM is legal and proper. In other words, the complaint of petitioner that only 15 councillors attended and 2 did not, was no found correct. Now this question, in the facts of this case, does not involve any issue of law nor of jurisdiction. Whether 2 councillors attended the meeting or not was a question of fact. To prove this fact statement was recorded, affidavits were obtained and then on their appreciation, it was held that the 2 councillors were also present. I concur with this finding recorded by the Commissioner in his reasoned order which takes into account all the relevant Issues. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued the matter like the appellate Court when she questioned the impugned finding on facts. I concur with this finding recorded by the Commissioner in his reasoned order which takes into account all the relevant Issues. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued the matter like the appellate Court when she questioned the impugned finding on facts. She virtually asked this Court to re-appreciate the factual reasoning and evidence brought on record by the parties I am not impressed by the submission as it is not permissible in writ jurisdiction. I am not prepared to hold that reasoning assigned by the learned Commissioner is perverse or without jurisdiction. It is reasoning capable of being rendered by the authority empowered to deal with it. I thus, do not find any issue of law or jurisdiction in this writ. What I find is involvement of facts and nothing else Since the finding was that 17 councillors attended the no-confidence move in the meeting, the same had to be upheld being passed in conformity with the requirement of law. Indeed, this legal position was no disputed while urging the submission. 7. As a consequence of aforesaid discussion, the petition fails and is dismissed in limine.