As per case facts, a successful election candidate's election was set aside by the Election Tribunal due to suppression of material facts and corrupt practice. The Tribunal then declared the ... runner-up as the elected candidate. The petitioner, the initially successful candidate, appealed this decision, arguing that a re-election should have been ordered instead, especially since it was a multi-candidate contest. The question arose whether, upon voiding an election for corrupt practices or disqualification in a multi-cornered contest, the Election Tribunal can declare the runner-up elected, or if it must order a fresh election. Finally, the Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that in a multi-candidate election where the winning candidate's votes are voided, it is impossible to predict how voters would have cast their ballots if that candidate had not been in the fray; thus, declaring the runner-up elected was an error, and a fresh election for the post should be conducted.