The non-signing of the proceedings book by the Executive Officer does not invalidate the recorded proceedings if the Executive Officer has endorsed the proceedings by sending a copy of the resolution to the Deputy Commissioner.

S.P.Goyal, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Kewal Gain, Junior Vice-President, Municipal Committee, Patiala, for a writ of quo warrant to removing Respondent No. 1 from the office of the aforesaid Municipal Committee.

2. The election of the previous President R.D. Kapur was approved and notified by the Punjab Government in the Official Gazette dated 3rd September, 1979. His term having expired on 2nd September, 1984, a meeting was requisitioned for 3rd September, 1984 to elect a new President. Twenty-one members were present in the Town Hall, at 11.00 a.m. on the said date. But, according to the petitioner no meeting took place and all of them left the Hall after about 20 minutes. However, to his great surprise, the petitioner read a news item in The Tribune on the following day that Sohan Lal Jalota respondent No. 1 was elected President of the Committee on 3rd September, 1984. Consequently, he as well as the Senior Vice-President, Raj Kumar Malhotra, made written representations, Annexures P-2 and P-3 to respondent No. 2 to conduct immediate enquiry before taking any action in the matter. Without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate the allegations made in his representation, the Government approved the election of respondent No. 1 and notified the same in the official Gazette dated 5th September, 1984.

3. In the written statement filed on behalf of the State Government, several preliminary objections have been raised which shall be noticed in due course. On merits it was stated that the meeting was held at 11.00 a.m. on 3rd September, 1984 which was attended by 21 members of the Municipal Committee. The meeting was presided over by the Senior Vice-President, Raj Malhotra Acting President and was supervised by C.R. Joshi, Sub Divisional Officer, Patiala. The meeting was open to the public and the Press and was attended amongst others by Lal Singh, Sant Ram Singla, M.L.As, Ram Parshad Seth, President District Congress Committee and Smt. Amarjit Kaur, M.P., R.D. Kapur, President, proposed the name of respondent No. 1 which was seconded by Charan Dass another member of the Municipal Committee. As no other name was proposed, respondent No. 1 was unanimously declared elected as President of the Committee. The proceedings of the meeting were recorded by the Meeting Assistant in the official Proceedings Book of the Municipal Committee. However, Raj Kumar Malhotra, who presided over the meeting did not sign the Proceedings Book and left the Town Hall before proceedings could be recorded saying that he had to go for some urgent work and would sign the Proceedings Book on his return after a short while. It was further averred that the copy of the resolution duly endorsed was received from the Deputy Director of Elections, Local Government, Punjab and on its basis election of respondent No. 1 was notified in the Official Gazette on 5th September, 1984. Respondent No. 1 and the Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee has also filed their written statements with similar averments. Both the parties have also produced affidavits of the members of the Municipal Committee and other persons in support of their respective stands.

4. From the resume of facts it is evident that this petition involves a hotly disputed question of fact as to whether the election to the office of the President took place or not in the meeting held on September 3, 1984. The respondents, therefore, have raised two preliminary objections that this Court would not be competent to resolve the said dispute in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner was by way of election petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, contended that in the absence of a resolution validly recorded in accordance with law it has to be held that no election took place and as such there is no need for this Court to go into any evi