ORDER Pandey, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the election of the councilors who have been returned from the 48 wards of the Indore Municipal Corporation as a result of the general elections under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act), held in the last quarter of 1964 and the first quarter of 1965. By Misc. Petitions Nos. 130, 131 and 132 of 1965, elections held In Wards Nos. 10, 9 and 33 have been separately challenged on identical grounds. This order shall dispose of all these petitions. 2. The programme of general elections fixed in accordance with the requirements of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation (Preparation Revision and Publication of Electoral Rolls, Election and Selection (Councilors) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called the Rules) was as follows:- Date of publication of electoral rolls 30 September 1964 The last date for receiving claims and objections 30 October 1964 The last date for decision on claims and objections 13 November 1964 The last date for filing appeal against decisions on claims and 20 November 1964 objections The last date for disposal of appeals arising out of the orders passed on claims and objections 27 November 1964 Final publication of the electoral rolls 7 December 1964 The last date for final nomination papers 21 December 1964 Scrutiny of nomination papers 30 December 1964 The Last date for withdrawal of nomination papers 7 January 1965 The date of poll 24 January 1965 It is not disputed that this programme was adhered to except in regard to one particular matter which, as we would show immediately, is the subject matter of the present controversy. 3. It was alleged that, after the last date fixed for receiving claims and objections and even after the final publication of the electoral rolls on 7 December 1964, claims and objections continued to be received and decided with the consequence that supplementary electoral rolls were published for several wards on 20 and 21 January 1965 and the names of as many as 12,804 voters were added to the final electoral rolls. However, it is not now disputed that, after 7 December 1964, numerous persons from various wards, including Wards Nos. However, it is not now disputed that, after 7 December 1964, numerous persons from various wards, including Wards Nos. 9, 10 and 33, had applied to the Electoral Registration Officer appointed under section 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, for inclusion of their names in the Assembly Rolls. B.E. Nilkanth, Sub-Divisional Officer, Mhow, who was the Electoral Registration Officer at that time, dealt with those claims and objections. After following the prescribed procedure and making due enquiry, he passed orders for correcting the Assembly Rolls which were corrected accordingly between 7 December 1964 and 19 January 1965. Following this, the Collector made in accordance with section 14 (2) of the Act similar amendments in the final electoral rolls and issued on 20 and 21 January 1965 the so-called supplementary electoral rolls. 4. According to the petitioners, two of whom other three had unsuccessfully contested the elections and 33, the names of 12,804 voters were illegally included in the final electoral rolls on 20 and 21 January 1965 in contravention of the provisions of sections 9 and 10 of the Act and Rules 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Rules. The petitioners claimed that, in view of the provisions of section 441-B (1) (d) (iv), they could not call in question by means of election petitions any election on the ground of non compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder relating to preparation of the list of voters. They have, therefore, moved this Court for quashing, as already indicated the election of the councilors returned to the Indore Municipal Corporation. 5 In answer, the respondents contested the claim that the provisions of section 9 or section 10 of the Act or of Rules 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Rules were either contravened or not observed. According to them, the final electoral rolls were validly amended in accordance with the requirements of section 14 (2) of the Act and could not, therefore, furnish any ground for calling in question the election of the councilors. 6. In view of the facts which are no longer in dispute, the controversy lies within a narrow compass. According to them, the final electoral rolls were validly amended in accordance with the requirements of section 14 (2) of the Act and could not, therefore, furnish any ground for calling in question the election of the councilors. 6. In view of the facts which are no longer in dispute, the controversy lies within a narrow compass. Shortly stated, the question is whether, after the electoral rolls were finally published on 7 December 1964, it was open to the Collector to make any amendment in those rolls in accordance with section 14 (2) of the Act similar to those that had been made after 7 December 1964 in the corresponding assembly rolls. 7. The provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder in so far as they are relevant for this case are reproduced : S. 10. 7. The provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder in so far as they are relevant for this case are reproduced : S. 10. The Government shall, from time to time, by notification in the official Gazette, generally or specially for each Corporation- * * * * (c) make rules consistent with this Act- (i) providing for the preparation and the revision of the list of voters from time to time and the appointment of the authority thereunder; * * * * (iii) fixing the date after which no application for enrolment in any such list under preparation or revision shall be received; (iv) determining the manner and period in which any objection to such lists in regard to the named entered therein or omitted therefrom may be made and the authority by whom such objections may be heard and decided and the judicial authority to whom the appeals of such entries and omissions shall lie; (v) prescribing the date for the publication of the municipal electoral roll; * * * * "S. 13 (2) If the authority appointed under sub-clause (i) of clause (c) on section 10, on application made to it or on its own motion, is satisfied after such enquiry as it thinks fit that any entry in the electoral roll of the Corporation- (a) is erroneous or defective in any particulars; (b) should be transposed to another place in the roll; or (c) should be deleted on the ground that the person concerned is dead or has ceased to be ordinarily resident in the ward of is otherwise not entitled to be registered in that roll; it shall, subject to such general or special directions, if any, as may be given by the Collector in this behalf, amend, transpose or delete the entry : * * * *" "S. 14 (1): The authority determined under section 10 of the Act shall, for purposes of preparation of electoral roll for a ward, adopt the assembly roll relatable to the area comprised in the said ward and publish the same in the manner prescribed under section 10 and upon its publication it shall, subject to any alteration, addition or modification made under or in accordance with this Act, be the electoral roll for the ward prepared in accordance with this Act. (2) Where any addition, omission, alteration or other amendment is made under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, or the Rules framed thereunder, in the Assembly roll relatable to the area of the ward, similar amendment shall, as soon as may be, be made in the corresponding electoral roll of the ward. * * * * ". "R. 4 (1): As soon as the roll has been prepared, the Collector shall give public notice in each ward that the roll has been prepared and a copy thereof is available for inspection at the Corporation office and at such other places as he may determine during office hours. * * * * (5) Every claim or objection under sub-rule (3) shall be in writing and shall be delivered in person or through an agent or sent by registered post together with one spare copy in the case of a claim and two spare copies in the case of un objection be as to reach the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Deputy Collector appointed by the Collector in writing in this behalf, within the period specified in sub-rule (3); if an objection is to an entry or entries of the names of more than one person, two spare copies in respect of each person shall accompany the objection...... * * * * (10) A claim or objection not lodged in the manner and within the period therein prescribed or by person not entitled to lodge the same shall be rejected. * * * *" "R.6. The State Government shall have power to order the revision of the roll generally at any stage and to direct that the roll so revised shall either be subject to the provisions of sub-rules (3), (5), (6), (10) and (11) of rule 4 and rule 5 shall be deemed to be the final roll of persons entitled to vote at the general election as it may deem expedient in the circumstances of each case. The order and direction shall be final." "R.8 (1). The order and direction shall be final." "R.8 (1). The Collector shall cause the rolls to be corrected in accordance with such order, if any, as may have been passed or received under rules 4, 5, 6 and 7 and on or before the date fixed by him in this behalf which shall not be less than six weeks before the date fixed for the elections he shall publish the rolls as amended in manuscript in the manner prescribed for the publication of the original rolls, Rolls not amended need not be published but public notice shall be given of the fact that they have not been amended. Clerical errors in the roll may, at any time, up to the date of election be corrected by the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Deputy Collector appointed by the Collector in this behalf. (2) Save in so far as it may be revised by the State Government in exercise of its powers of revision under rule 6, a roll as published originally or as published with amendments under this rule as the case may be shall be deemed to be the roll of persons entitled to vote at the general elections" 8. Section 14 (1) of the Act makes it clear that the assembly rolls relatable to the areas comprised in the various wards of any Corporation functioning under the Act have to be "adopted" for that Corporation. The use of the large word "adopt" is significant. It implies that, for all practical purposes, the assembly rolls have to be regarded as the electoral rolls for the Corporation. The object of making such a provision appears to be to dispense with the necessity of preparing separate electoral lolls for each Corporation and thus to save energy and time required in so doing It is, however, argued that S. 14 (1) Ibid refers to adoption of the assembly rolls prior to the preliminary publication and that, once that has been done, those rolls have to be regarded as the rolls of the wards subject to such alternation, addition or modification as might be made only under rules 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Rules. Even apart from the consideration that the publication mentioned in section 14 (1) is not expressly restricted to what is called preliminary publication, it is, by the very words therein employed, subject to any alternation, addition or modification made "under or in accordance with this Act". In so far as such alterations additions and modifications are made in pursuance of the provisions of rules 4, 5, 6 and 7, they are made under the Act. But when they are made by virtue of the provisions of sections 13 and 14 (2) of the Act, they are made "in accordance with this Act". By virtue of the provisions of section 13, the authority appointed under section 10 (c) (i) may, even on its own, amend, transpose or delete any entry in certain circumstances, That authority must also, as soon as may be, make in the electoral rolls amendments similar to those in the assembly rolls made under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the rules made thereunder Both these powers are exercisable without any restriction as to time. The publication of the assembly rolls mentioned in section 14 (1) is thus subject to such alterations, additions or modification as might be made both under rules, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and by virtue of sections 13 and 14 (2) and only after all such alterations, additions and modifications will the assembly rolls be the electoral rolls for the Corporation "prepared in accordance with this Act". It will thus be readily seen that the contention that section 14 (2) is subject to section 14 (1) is not well-founded. 9. Our attention is, however, drawn to rule 8 (2) which provides that electoral rolls as finally published after amendments made in pursuance of the orders passed under rules 4, 5 and 7 shall, subject to any revision made by the State Government under rule 6, "be deemed to be the roll of persons entitled to vote at the general elections", In our opinion, this rule postulates and provides for a situation in which no action has been taken in accordance with sections 13 and 14 (2) of the Act. If, however, the rule is read as taking away or bridging the powers expressly conferred by the aforesaid provisions of the Act, it must be regarded as bad to that extent. If, however, the rule is read as taking away or bridging the powers expressly conferred by the aforesaid provisions of the Act, it must be regarded as bad to that extent. It is well established that a rule-making body cannot frame rules in conflict with, or derogating from, the statute under which they are framed and, whenever the rules framed are broad in their import and therefore inconsistent with the statute, they must yield to, and be construed in such a way as to be consistent with, the provisions of the statute. In this view of the matter we are of opinion that Rule 8 (2) cannot be regarded as limiting the effect of sections 13 and 14 (2) of the Act. 10. In this connection, we have been referred to Bishwanath Prasad Vs. Ramji Prasad AIR 1964 1 at. 459, also. That case is, in our opinion, distinguishable on facts. There the matter was governed by rule 4, which was uncontrolled by any provision of the statute and which provided Inter Alia that "the electoral roll......of an Assembly constituency......for the time being in force......shall be deemed to be the electoral roll for that municipality for the purpose of elections of municipal commissioners. . . . . .". Their Lordships of the Patna High Court pointedly referred to the expression "for the time being in force" employed in the rule and repelled the suggestion that it included Assembly electoral rolls as revised under the Representation of the People Act 1950, after the notification of the programme of general elections. It was, however, conceded there that, as provided by the note given below Rule 4, the electoral roll could be altered to some extent even during the process of election. This is what Mahapatra, J. stated: "It is true that the Assembly electoral roll in force at the time of notification by the District Magistrate for a municipal election, which will be deemed to tie the electoral roll for that municipal election, can be altered to some extent, even during the process of election, as contemplated under the note given under Rule 4 of the Bihar Municipal Elections and Election Petitions Rules, 1953. That alternation is limited to the inclusion of the name of any person who may be entitled to be registered as an elector or to the correction of any erroneous or defective entry in that roll. That alternation is limited to the inclusion of the name of any person who may be entitled to be registered as an elector or to the correction of any erroneous or defective entry in that roll. The manner in which this alteration can be effected has been indicated in that note with reference to sections 22 and 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950." (Page 468) In this case before us, such alterations, additions and modifications during the process of election are authorised, as already pointed out, by sections 13 and 14 (2) of the Act. 11. In the view we have taken of these cases, it is not necessary to consider whether, when the electoral rolls had not been prepared by an incompetent authority and were in that sense not Non Est, the elections could be set aside only on the ground that there were irregularities in preparing them in the sense that, in certain respects the section taken was illegal. 12. In the result, all these petitions fail and are dismissed. The petitioners in this case shall bear their own costs and payout of the security amount those incurred by the contesting respondents. There will be two sets of costs, one for the State Government and its employees and another for the other contesting respondents. The remaining amount of security shall be refunded. Similar orders about costs and security shall be made in the other three cases. Hearing fee in each case Rs.100/-.