Additional declaration in election petitions is unavailable to an elector petitioner, so recrimination cannot be maintained

An elector petitioner cannot claim the additional declaration that he himself or another candidate has been duly elected under the election law, because the statutory scheme contemplates that relief only for a contesting candidate. On that basis, a recrimination petition is maintainable only where a valid claim for such additional declaration is legally available; if the petitioner is merely an elector, no corresponding right to recriminate arises and the petition is not maintainable. The election challenge therefore remains confined to the general contest to the returned candidate, without the additional declaration relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an elector petitioner can claim the additional declaration that he himself or another candidate has been duly elected under the election law; (ii) whether a recrimination petition is maintainable where such additional declaration is not legally permissible.

Issue (i): whether an elector petitioner can claim the additional declaration that he himself or another candidate has been duly elected under the election law.

Analysis: The statutory language in the provisions governing election petitions, additional declarations and joinder of parties was examined together. The expressions "he himself or any other candidate" and "all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner" were read in their ordinary sense, and the structure of the provisions was treated as indicating that the petitioner contemplated for the additional declaration is a contesting candidate. The Court also considered the limited value of earlier Supreme Court observations relied upon for the contrary view and held that they did not conclude the point.

Conclusion: The additional declaration was held not to be permissible at the instance of an elector petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether a recrimination petition is maintainable where such additional declaration is not legally permissible.

Analysis: Recrimination was treated as a right that arises only when a valid claim for the additional declaration is made. Since an elector petitioner could not validly seek that relief, no corresponding right to file recrimination accrued. On that footing, the recrimination petition failed for want of maintainability.

Conclusion: The recrimination petition was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The preliminary objection succeeded, the election petition was confined to the general challenge to the returned candidate, and the connected recrimination petition did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the election law provisions considered, a voter or elector petitioner cannot claim the further declaration that he or another candidate has been duly elected, and a recrimination petition is maintainable only when such a valid additional declaration is legally available.

---