TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Voter's claim for additional candidate election declaration denied in election petition. Recrimination petition dismissed.</h1> <h3>Nag Raj Patodia Versus R.K. Birla and Ors.</h3> The Court held that the voter petitioner could not claim an additional declaration that a candidate should be declared elected. Consequently, the ... - Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the recrimination petition.2. Right of a voter petitioner to claim additional declaration.3. Interpretation of relevant sections of the Representation of the People Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the Recrimination Petition:The primary issue raised by Respondent No. 2 was the non-maintainability of the recrimination petition filed by Respondent No. 1, the returned candidate. It was argued that the additional declaration sought by the election petitioner, which stated that Respondent No. 2 was duly elected, could not be claimed by a voter petitioner but only by a candidate petitioner. Since the petitioner could not legally claim such relief, Respondent No. 1 did not acquire any right to file the recrimination petition. Thus, the recrimination petition was argued to be non-maintainable in law. This issue was considered purely a question of law, requiring no additional evidence, and was fundamental to the jurisdiction of the Court to decide the recrimination petition.2. Right of a Voter Petitioner to Claim Additional Declaration:Respondent No. 2's counsel argued that under Sections 82 and 84 of the Representation of the People Act, a voter petitioner, who was not one of the contesting candidates, could not seek an additional declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Pai, acknowledged the complexity of the issue, referencing Supreme Court observations that were not definitive but suggested that a voter petitioner might claim additional relief. However, Mr. Purshottam, representing Respondent No. 1, opposed this view, citing Supreme Court decisions that indicated a voter petitioner could claim such relief and argued that the language of Sections 81, 82, 84, 97, and 101 of the Act supported this interpretation.3. Interpretation of Relevant Sections of the Representation of the People Act:The Court examined Supreme Court decisions to determine if they provided binding law on the issue. In 'K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar' and 'Inamati Mallappa Bassappa v. Desai Basavaraj Ayyappa,' the Supreme Court made observations that assumed the competence of an elector to claim an additional declaration. However, these observations were not central to the decisions and did not constitute binding law or obiter dicta precluding the Court from deciding the issue.The Court analyzed Section 81, which allows an elector to present an election petition, and Sections 82 and 84, which detail the requirements for joining respondents and claiming additional declarations. The Court concluded that while Section 81 primarily contemplates a general declaration about the returned candidate, it does not exclude the possibility of an additional declaration.However, the Court found that the expressions 'he himself or any other candidate' in Sections 82 and 84, when interpreted literally, indicate that the petitioner must be one of the contesting candidates. The language of the old Section 82, which included all nominated candidates, suggested that the current Section 82 assumes the petitioner to be a contesting candidate when seeking an additional declaration. The Court also considered the nature of the additional declaration, which is more personal and less of general interest to the constituency, and the lack of a right for an elector to recriminate against other candidates.Conclusion:The Court held that the petitioner's prayer for an additional declaration that Respondent No. 2 should be declared elected was not legally permissible. Consequently, the recrimination petition filed by Respondent No. 1 was also non-maintainable. The Court directed that the prayer for the additional declaration be deleted from the election petition and dismissed the recrimination petition. No order as to costs was made, considering Respondent No. 2's earlier support for the petitioner's case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
