Sri Movva Chandrasekhar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that his client had, in fact, produced a certified copy of the relevant part of the electoral roll of Khairatabad Assembly Constituency showing his name as a voter, at 2.45 P.M. on 06.04.2009. However, the same was not taken note of by the Returning Officer on the ground that the scrutiny of nominations was taken up at 11.00 A.M. as was intimated to the petitioner in the receipt issued while accepting his nomination. The learned counsel admits that his client was put on notice that the scrutiny would be taken up at 11.00 A.M., but he contends that the time for completing the scrutiny is up to 3.00 P.M. and if not completed by that time, it would go on till the scrutiny of all the nominations is finished. He therefore contended that the action of the Returning Officer in rejecting his client’s nomination, in spite of the relevant material being produced, is not valid and proper. With regard to the other ground of rejection, viz., non-filing of Forms ‘A’ and ‘B’ by the petitioner, the learned counsel contended that the filing of such forms was not mandatory or relevant. He asserted that the filing of such forms arises when the candidate is contesting on behalf of a political party and in the absence of such forms, the candidates are to be treated as independent candidates. Reference is made to the case of a candidate, Chalamala Shetty Sunil, from Kakinada Lok Saba Constituency, whose nomination was kept pending on the ground that objections had been raised that he was a British citizen, which was accepted thereafter upon his producing his pass-port and other documentation in support of his Indian citizenship. The learned counsel therefore contended that it is open to the Returning Officer to permit rectification of defects in the nomination and sought a
