JUDGMENT : R.S. Bachawat, J. 1. The petitioner asks for a declaration that the election of Dr Zakir Hussain, Respondent 16, as President is void. The petitioner and Respondents 1 to 16 were the candidates for election to the office of the President. Each candidate filed with the Returning Officer his nomination paper together with a certified copy of the entry relating to him in the electoral roll for the Parliamentary constituency in which he was registered. The petitioner filed with his nomination paper also a certificate of age and citizenship issued by the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poona. At the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers on April 15, 1967, the petitioner filed an objection before the Returning Officer claiming that the nomination papers of all the other candidates should be rejected as they did not file any proof of their age and citizenship. The Returning Officer summarily disallowed the objection and accepted the nominations of the petitioner and Respondents 1 to 16. The election was held on May 6, 1967. Respondent 16 obtained the majority of votes and was declared elected as President. It is the contention of the petitioner that the nominations of Respondents 1 to 16 were wrongly accepted and that the election of Respondent 16 is liable to be set aside under Section 18(l)(c) of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 (Act 31 of 1952). 2. Article 58 of the Constitution enacts that no person is eligible for election as President unless he (a) is a citizen of India, (b) has completed the age of thirty-five years, and (c) is qualified for election as a member of the House of the People. Section 5 (1) of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 provides that any person may be nominated as a candidate for election to the office of President if he is qualified to be elected to that office under the Constitution. It is not the case of the petitioner that any of the respondents was not a citizen of India or was below the age of 35 years or was otherwise not qualified for election to the office of President. Section 5(2) lays down that each candidate shall be nominated by a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and subscribed by the candidate himself as assenting to the nomination and by two electors as proposer and seconder. Section 5(2) lays down that each candidate shall be nominated by a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and subscribed by the candidate himself as assenting to the nomination and by two electors as proposer and seconder. Rule 4(1) of the Presidential and Vice- Presidential Elections Rules, 1952 requires presentation of a nomination paper completed in Form 2 in the case of a Presidential election together with the certified copy of the entry relating to the candidate in the electoral roll of the Parliamentary constituency in which he is registered. It is not the contention of the petitioner that the respondents or any of them failed to comply with the provisions of Section 5(2) or Rule 4(1). Rule 6 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Rules, 1952 is in these terms: "6. Scrutiny of nominations. -(1) The candidates, one proposer and one seconder of each candidate, and one other person duly authorised in writing by each candidate, shall be entitled to be present at the time of scrutiny of nominations; and the Returning Officer shall give them all reasonable facilities for examining the nomination papers of all candidates which have been delivered within the time and in the manner laid down in Rule 4. (2) The Returning Officer shall then examine the nomination papers and decide all objections which may be made to any of them. (3) The Returning Officer may, either on such objection or on his own motion, and after such summary inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, reject a nomination paper on any of the following grounds, namely: (a) that the candidate is not eligible for election as President or Vice-President, as the case may be, under the Constitution; or (b) that the proposer or seconder is not qualified to subscribe a nomination paper under sub-section (2) of Section 5; or (c) that the signature of the candidate, proposer or seconder is not genuine or has been obtained by fraud; or (d) that the nomination paper has not been duly completed and the defect or irregularity is of a substantial character; or (e) that the proposer or seconder has subscribed, whether as proposer or seconder, another nomination paper received earlier by the Returning Officer at the same election. (4) The Returning Officer shall hold the scrutiny on the date appointed in this behalf under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 and shall not allow any adjournment of the proceedings except when such proceedings are interrupted or obstructed by riot or open violence or by causes beyond his control: Provided that, in case an objection is made, the candidate concerned shall, if he so requires, be allowed time to rebut it not later than the next day but one following the date fixed for scrutiny, and the Returning Officer shall record his decision on the date on which the proceedings have been adjourned. (5) The Returning Officer shall endorse on each nomination paper his decision either accepting or rejecting it and if the nomination paper is rejected, he shall record in writing a brief statement of his reasons for rejecting it." 3. It is to be noticed that the Returning Officer can reject a nomination paper on one or more of the grounds mentioned in Rule 6(3) only. The petitioner does not rely on any of the grounds mentioned in clauses (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Rule 6(3). His contention is that the Returning Officer should have rejected the nomination papers on the ground mentioned in clause (a) of Rule 6(3). But in his petition he has studiously refrained from saying that any of the respondents was not eligible for election as President or that any of them was either not a citizen or was under the age of 35 years. His complaint is that in view of the objection filed by him, the Returning Officer should have required from the respondents proof of their citizenship and age. This contention must be rejected. The rules do not require that any proof of age or citizenship other than that mentioned in Rule 4 need be furnished at the time of the nomination. Rule 4 requires the filing of a nomination paper completed in Form 2 and a certified copy of the relevant entry in the electoral roll. The nomination paper completed in Form 2 contains a declaration by the proposer and seconder that the candidate concerned has completed the age of 35 years. The certified copy of the entry in the electoral roll of the relevant Parliamentary constituency shows that the candidate is registered as an elector. The nomination paper completed in Form 2 contains a declaration by the proposer and seconder that the candidate concerned has completed the age of 35 years. The certified copy of the entry in the electoral roll of the relevant Parliamentary constituency shows that the candidate is registered as an elector. Only a citizen of India is qualified for registration in the electoral roll. In view of Rule 4, the Returning Officer could accept these documents as sufficient proof of age and citizenship. Even in the objection filed before the Returning Officer, the petitioner did not say that any of the candidates was not a citizen or was below the age of 35 years. In these circumstances, the Returning Officer was not bound to call for better proof of age or citizenship. 4. Another objection is that the enquiry into the objection of the petitioner was not in accordance with Rule 6. It is said that on receipt of the objection the Returning Officer should have adjourned the scrutiny for at least 24 hours. This argument is baseless. The Returning Officer was required by the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 to give the respondents time to rebut the objection if they required such time. None of the respondents asked for any time to rebut the objection. The petitioner was not entitled to ask for an adjournment of the proceedings, nor did he ask for an adjournment. The Returning Officer held the enquiry in accordance with Rule 6 and rightly accepted the nominations of Respondents 1 to 16. 5. There is no merit whatsoever in this petition. In the result, the petition is dismissed. In the circumstances we make no order as to costs.