Elected members cannot be suspended automatically without sufficient cause; the authority has discretion based on disclosed information.

1. The present letter patent appeal is maintained by the appellants - petitioners against the judgment passed by learned Single Judge, in applications CMPs No.3917 and 3918 of 2018 in a case CWP No.1831 of 2017, titled Madhu Sharma & Another versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others. The applicants in the said applications have been added as party respondents in the writ petition and interim order which was in favour of the appellants - petitioners / Non - applicants, has been vacated.

2. Briefly stating the facts, which have come on the record by way of the pleadings of the parties in the present letter patent appeal, are that respondent No.5 Shri Amit Kumar in the present letter patent appeal, as per the appellants - petitioners, while filing his nomination papers for contesting election as Ward Member of Nagar Panchayat, Baijnath, concealed vital information and the Returning Officer could not reject his nomination papers, as such, he got elected as Member of the respondent No.6 by concealing material information. He has not disclosed that he has been charged by the Criminal Court for the offence and simply stated that the criminal case is pending against him.

3. It is further alleged that respondent No.5 cannot otherwise also continue as a Member of Nagar Panchayat and his election is required to be set aside and that he is required to be suspended by respondents No.1 to 4, meaning thereby that as he cannot be considered as a Member, so no confidence motion moved by him alongwith other Members of respondent No.6, required to be quashed. With this prayer, the writ petition was maintained and an application was also maintained to stay the proceedings in no confidence motion. While interim order was operating, two applications were moved by respondents No.7 to 13 for vacation of the stay and adding them as parties, which learned Single Judge had allowed and the interim order was vacated.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants - petitioners, has argued that learned Single Judge has no jurisdiction to set aside the interim order passed after adding respondents No.7 to 13 as party, as they are not necessary parties and only question required to be adjudicated was with respect to the continuation of respondent No.5 as Member of Nagar Panchayat, Baijnath. He has further argued that the application required to be dismissed. To support his arguments, he has relied upon the proforma required to be filled in at the time of filing of nomination papers and has stated that the information given by respondent No.5 at the time of submitting his proforma with regard to the pendency of the case, is wrong as he has not mentioned in the relevant column that the charge against him has been framed. He has further argued that under S.272 read with S.8 of the Representation of People Act, respondents No.1 to 4 should have suspended respondent No.5 immediately as the charge was framed against him.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that the information, as submitted by respondent No.5, was as per rules prescribed and there was no concealment of material fact. He has further argued that it is for respondents No.1 to 4 to consider whether for the offence for which respondent No.5 was charged, was sufficient to call for his suspension or not and as respondents No.1 to 4 have come to the conclusion that the offence was not sufficient to call for his suspension, hence, he was not suspended and further he needs not to be suspended.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, in addition to what has been argued by learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that the writ p