New Delhi, June 16 -- The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the order of the Himachal Pradesh high court depriving members of legislative assembly (MLA), as ex-officio members, to vote in the election of president and vice president of municipal corporations and nagar panchayats in the state. A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justice V Mohana passed the order on an appeal filed by the Himachal Pradesh government against the order passed on June 4. The state argued that the order of the high court came in a clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994, which are still pending consideration. Moreover, the effect of the order deprived MLAs to exercise their right to vote as "ex officio members" in the middle of the election process. The CJI-led bench disapproved of the HC order and said, "What the act does not provide, how can the court provide by a judicial order." Senior advocate Madhavi Divan appearing for the state along with additional advocate general Vaibhav Srivastava said that the 1994 act was amended in 2000 to specifically grant voting rights to MLAs under the "ex-officio members" category for election of president and vice president of urban local bodies. This amendment was contained in section 10(3) of the act. She pointed out that the high court relied on the Himachal Pradesh Election Rules, 2015, to suggest that the election of president and vice president could only be done by the "elected members". Divan explained that voting rights are provided only to elected members and ex-officio members (MLAs) and not nominated members. The latter can only attend the proceedings and take part in the discussions. The state pointed out that realising the possible conflict due to the 2000 amendment and the 2015 rules, a clarification was issued by the Urban Development Department reiterating that MLAs have right to vote for election of presidents and vice presidents of municipalities and nagar panchayats. This clarification along with the 2000 amendment was challenged by Sanjay Chauhan and others. After the election process got underway, the petitioners filed an interim application in the high court to stay the operation of section 10(3) which allows MLAs to have a say in electing presidents and vice- presidents. "The process of election of President and Vice President in Municipalities is underway and during pendency of such an exercise the interim orders restraining the MLAs to cast their vote for election of President and Vice President of Municipalities.takes away a substantial statutory right to vote at an interim stage," the petition said. The case concerns the majority of approximately 49 municipalities/nagar panchayats. Of these, the president/V-P in two local bodies have been appointed. The HC order said, "The respondents are directed to conclude the election of President and Vice President of the Municipalities in Himachal Pradesh by permitting the elected members to elect President and Vice-President according to their wish and majority opinion mandated by people of municipalities, but without any right of ex officio members (MLAs) to cast their votes in the said process." The top court clarified that the vote cast by MLAs in the present election will be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings heard by the high court. Reacting to the development, Himachal Pradesh Advocate General Anup Kumar Rattan described the Supreme Court order as a reaffirmation of the legislative intent behind the Municipal Act. Speaking to mediapersons on Monday, Rattan said "Section 10(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994 explicitly grants voting rights to MLAs as ex-officio members of municipal bodies". "The Supreme Court has clearly held that until Section 10(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act is struck down or declared invalid, MLAs retain their statutory voting rights," said Rattan. The Supreme Court observed that while the HC had not stayed or struck down Section 10(3) of the Act, it had effectively taken away the voting rights granted under the provision through an interim order, he informed. Rattan said apex court noted that a court cannot, at the interim stage, effectively decide the main issue pending in the petition. "The court observed that MLAs represent larger constituencies and are elected representatives just like municipal councillors. Therefore, as long as the statutory provision remains in force, their voting rights cannot be denied," he said....