JUDGMENT : Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Heard Mr. T. Sreedhar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.1, and Mr. Kiran Kumar Vadlamudi, learned Government Pleader, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, for the respondents no.2 and 3. 2. The present Appeal is directed against the order dated 12.11.2021, passed in Writ Petition No.26481 of 2021 by the learned single Judge refusing to grant any interim relief to the petitioner in I.A. No.1 of 2021. 3. The appellant being a prospective candidate for the post of Member, Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency (ZPTC) in Bangarupalyam Mandal, in the District of Chittoor, upon scrutiny of his nomination papers, the said stood rejected by the order of respondent no.3 on the ground that he had left some columns unfilled in the declaration form relating to ‘assets and liabilities, criminal antecedents and educational qualifications’. On objection, it transpired that there was an overdue of Rs.44,106/- against him to the Chandrasekharapuram Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society. He filed appeal against the same before the respondent no.2, which was dismissed by order dated 08.11.2021, leading to filing of Writ Petition No.26481 of 2021, in which the appellant filed Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2021 to stay the operation of the order of respondent no.3, dated 06.11.2021, and also the order of respondent no.2, dated 08.11.2021, which stood dismissed by the order of learned single Judge, dated 12.11.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the relevant election rules give an opportunity of correcting inadvertent mistakes which may have occurred in filling up of the nomination papers. The Court’s attention was specifically drawn to Rule 12(1) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) dealing with scrutiny of nomination papers. Learned counsel submitted that the proviso to Rule 12(3) of the Rules clearly indicates that in case, an objection is made, the candidate concerned may be allowed time to rebut the same not later than the next day and the Returning Officer shall record his decision on the date to which the proceedings are adjourned. This, learned counsel contended has not been followed in the present case as no opportunity was given to the appellant to rectify the so called omission of not filling up of the columns. This, learned counsel contended has not been followed in the present case as no opportunity was given to the appellant to rectify the so called omission of not filling up of the columns. Further, it was contended that Rule 12(2) of the Rules also provides that the nomination of a candidate shall not be rejected merely on the ground of any incorrect description of his name or of the name of his proposer, or of any other particulars relating to the candidate or his proposer as entered in the electoral roll, if the identity of the candidate or proposer, as the case may be, is otherwise established beyond reasonable doubt. 5. Thus, it was contended that a conjoint reading of the same, would show that injustice has been caused to the appellant by such patently illegal rejection of his nomination papers for the election. 6. Learned counsel also relied upon the Circular No.29/SEC-B1/2019, dated 19.03.2019, of the respondent no.1, in which clause (4) stipulates that the preliminary examination of the nomination filed is to be taken up by the Returning Officer then and there, with regard to inter alia, whether all the columns of the declaration are filled in by the candidate, as incomplete declaration may lead to rejection of his nomination paper and in case any of the column is kept blank by the candidate, the Returning Officer shall make a note in the check list and hand it over to the candidate under proper acknowledgment. 7. Summing up his argument, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that tomorrow being the date of the election, the appellant be allowed to fill his nomination form and take part in the election. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition itself in view of the Full Bench decision of the erstwhile unified High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Kalla Ramakrishna vs. State Election Commission and others [(2005) 1 APLJ (11)]. Further, it was submitted that the provision relied upon by the appellant is not with regard to the issue involved in the present case. 9. Learned Government Pleader for the respondents no.2 and 3 submitted that the impugned orders of the Returning Officer and the Appellate Authority are sound in law. Further, it was submitted that the provision relied upon by the appellant is not with regard to the issue involved in the present case. 9. Learned Government Pleader for the respondents no.2 and 3 submitted that the impugned orders of the Returning Officer and the Appellate Authority are sound in law. It was submitted that the law does not contemplate giving an opportunity to rectify any mistake. 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court does not find any occasion to interfere. The fact that the appellant had not filled up the columns in question is not in dispute. Pausing here, the Court would indicate that such non-filling up of the columns related to assets and liabilities, criminal antecedents and educational qualifications, and there cannot be any doubt that such information is vital to be disclosed so that it is known to the public in general with regard to the person who is contesting in election to a public office. Moreover, proviso to Rule 12(2) of the Rules relates to a situation where the nomination of a candidate shall not be rejected merely on the ground of any incorrect description of his name or of the name of his proposer, or of any other particulars relating to the candidate or his proposer as entered in the electoral roll, if the identity of the candidate or proposer, as the case may be, is otherwise established beyond reasonable doubt. 11. This provision, clearly relates only with regard to there being a controversy as to the correct description of the candidate or his particulars relatable to him or his personal identity as entered in the electoral roll. The same has nothing to do with leaving columns blank relating to his assets and liabilities, criminal antecedents and educational qualifications. Further, proviso to Rule 12(3) of the Rules indicates that in case of an objection, the candidate concerned may be allowed time to rebut the same is also misconceived for the reason that the same gives an opportunity only of rebuttal and not correcting or supplementing the deficiencies. In the present case, the columns were left blank. Further, proviso to Rule 12(3) of the Rules indicates that in case of an objection, the candidate concerned may be allowed time to rebut the same is also misconceived for the reason that the same gives an opportunity only of rebuttal and not correcting or supplementing the deficiencies. In the present case, the columns were left blank. The Circular of the respondent no.1 dated 19.03.2019, which has also been relied upon by the appellant, especially clause (4) thereof clearly indicates that if any of the columns of the declaration are kept blank or incomplete, the nomination is liable to be rejected. It only provides that in case any of the columns is kept blank by the candidate, the Returning Officer shall make a note in the checklist and hand it over to the candidate under proper acknowledgment. This is a safeguard so that the documents which may have been enclosed by the prospective candidate are not tampered with or removed later on and if there is an objection, the candidate shall have with him the correct information by the Returning Officer so as to give him an opportunity to rebut any wrong mentioning of incomplete declaration. Again, the same is not a provision to give another opportunity of supplementing or rectifying any omissions in filling up of the check form or incomplete declaration. 12. Thus, taking an overall view of the matter coupled with the fact that the Full Bench of this Court in Kallam Ramakrishna (supra) having held that writ petition is not maintainable, we do not find any ground warranting interference by this Court in the order impugned. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. 14. Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending also stand disposed of.