JUDGMENT Rajan Gupta. J. (Oral).:- The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders dated 11th September, 2009, Annexure P-4, passed by respondent No.1 as well as Notification dated 17th September, 2009, Annexure P-5, whereby removal of the petitioner from the post of President of the Municipal Council, Nabha, was notified. 2. Brief factual background of the case is that the petitioner was elected as President of the Municipal Council. Nabha in June, 2008. On 26.6.2009, a requisition for ‘no confidence’ was moved by 15 members of the Municipal Council against the petitioner on the ground that he had failed to discharge his basic responsibilities, details whereof were enumerated in the requisition itself. Pursuant to the requisition, a meeting of the members of the Municipal Council was held on 22nd July, 2009. In the meeting on the said date, it was resolved that sixteen members had voted against the petitioner by raising their hands and five had voted in his favour. In view of the conclusion that 2/3rd of the members of the Municipal Council had voted against the petitioner, no confidence motion was declared to have been passed. The proceeding­-book, original whereof has also been produced in court, was signed by the petitioner as well as 19 other members. The resolution, Annexure P-3 dated 22nd July, 2009 was challenged by the petitioner in a separate writ petition i.e. CWP No.11601 of 2009, wherein notice of motion was issued and an interim direction was given that President of the Municipal Council, Nabha be not elected during the pendency of the writ petition. The stay was, however, vacated on 7th October, 2009 whereafter fresh election to the post of President was held and one Shri G.S. Bhatti was elected as the President of the Municipal Council. Removal of the petitioner from the post of President was notified by Notification, Annexure P-5 dated 17th September, 2009. Resultantly, the petitioner preferred the instant petition challenging order. Annexure P-4 and notification, Annexure P-5. Needless to say that the CWP No.11601 of 2009 has, thus been rendered infructuous as would be clear from separate order passed therein. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, at the outset, assailed the resolution passed on 22nd July, 2009. Annexure P- 3. Resultantly, the petitioner preferred the instant petition challenging order. Annexure P-4 and notification, Annexure P-5. Needless to say that the CWP No.11601 of 2009 has, thus been rendered infructuous as would be clear from separate order passed therein. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, at the outset, assailed the resolution passed on 22nd July, 2009. Annexure P- 3. He has pointed out that mere allegation is that 16 members voted against the petitioner by raising their hands. The said resolution does not mention their names and thus this raises serious doubt about the validity of the meeting held on that date. This apart, he has drawn attention of this court to the effect that resolution was signed by 20 members and not 21 as stated in the resolution itself. Thus, according to him, the meeting was not attended by 21 members. Learned counsel has further submitted that since the resolution itself was defective, order Annexure P-4 and Notification Annexure P-5 are unsustainable and, therefore, deserve to be quashed. 4. Mr. Puri, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab has, however, supported the order passed and notification issued pursuant thereto, Annexures P-4 and P-5 respectively. He submits that raising of hands by members would suffice for arriving at a conclusion whether the petitioner enjoyed the support of majority of the members. He has referred to reply filed on behalf of the State and has submitted that the only person, who refused to sign the attendance register, was Surender Bawa who voted against the motion and thus in favour of the’ petitioner. He submits that his non-signing the register would not be material to the facts of the case and no illegality as such can be said to have been committed. He has also referred to the detailed order passed by the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab. Department of Local Government, Annexure P-4, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He submits that all questions of fact raised by the petitioner were dealt with by the said authority and the same are beyond the scope of adjudication in the writ jurisdiction of this court. 5. Mr. Sethi, appearing for respondent No.3 Municipal Council, has reiterated the arguments advanced by learned State counsel. He has further submitted that entire proceedings of the Municipal Council were videographed in order to avoid eventuality of objection at a later stage. 5. Mr. Sethi, appearing for respondent No.3 Municipal Council, has reiterated the arguments advanced by learned State counsel. He has further submitted that entire proceedings of the Municipal Council were videographed in order to avoid eventuality of objection at a later stage. According to him, the CD, in which the proceedings are recorded, was played before the Principal Secretary to Government, when hearing was granted to the petitioner. He submits that the same left no room for any doubt that the resolution Annexure P-3 was validly passed. He further submits that a perusal of resolution Annexure P-3 would clearly show that signatures of the petitioner are appended on the same and the petitioner now cannot turn around to challenge the same, particularly when he did not raise any objection at that time. He has reiterated that once having accepted that sixteen members had voted against him, the petitioner now cannot challenge the same. In any case, this would be disputed question of fact which can only be proved by leading evidence. He has further submitted that sixteen members, who had voted in favour of the ‘no confidence motion’, gave their affidavits before respondent No.1 at the time of hearing and affirmed their stand therein that they had passed the motion of no confidence against the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. 7. It is evident that a meeting of the Municipal Council was held on 22nd July, 2009 wherein the requisition for removal of the petitioner from the post of President was put to motion, Admittedly, minimum 16 members were required to carry through the motion being the 2/3rd majority of the total members of the Municipal Council. It is further not disputed that the same could he decided by raising of hands as it is provided in the statute itself. The only question which comes for consideration before this court is whether the motion was carried through by sixteen member. Though this is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. yet prima facie there is nothing to show that 16 members did not vote in. favour or the motion. The original proceeding book, which has been produced in court, shows that 21 members had attended the meeting though one of them did not sign the resolution ,ultimately passed. yet prima facie there is nothing to show that 16 members did not vote in. favour or the motion. The original proceeding book, which has been produced in court, shows that 21 members had attended the meeting though one of them did not sign the resolution ,ultimately passed. The proceedings were even signed by the petitioner leading to a conclusion that the same were drawn up in his presence and affirmed by him. There is nothing to show any patent defect with the resolution in question. The matter thereafter came up before respondent No.1 and an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. It appears that Before the said authority not only the recorded version of the meeting was produced, sixteen members filed their affidavits in support of the fact that they had voted against the petitioner in the meeting held on 22nd July, 2009. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the impugned order. Annexure P-4 or notification Annexure P-5, issued pursuant thereto. I am thus of the considered view that there is no ground to interfere in the impugned orders in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this court. Other disputed questions of fact, which have been raised, cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction of this court. The petition is, thus, devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. --------------