Short Note : This is a petition filed by the petitioner challenging the preparation of the electoral rolls for the election to the Nagda Municipal Council. 2. According to the petitioner he is a citizen of India and is working in the Chemical Division of the Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Company Ltd., Birlagram Nagda as a Stores Officer since 7th July 1971. It is further alleged that he is residing in the Chemical Division Staff Colony at Birlagram Nagda in Flat No.3 in Building No. 10 According to him he is residing there since 1971. It is further alleged that his name was registered as voter for the Assembly Elections in the Khachrod Vidhan Sabha Electoral Rolls 1975 and appears at serial No. 894. It is alleged that the Municipality of Nagda was constituted on 23-2-1968. Initially it was a Class III municipality but later in 1971 the municipality was converted into a Class II municipality and the Sub-Divisional Officer Khachrod was appointed Administrator of the municipality. It is further alleged that the State Government divided the Nagda municipality into 20 wards. Each ward was to elect one councillor. A challenge was also made in the petition about the distribution of wards where as it is contended that the rules made for preparation of the electoral rolls have not been followed. It was alleged that as required under the provisions contained in section 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act 1961 (herein. after referred to as "the Act") electoral rolls were to be prepared but they have not been prepared in accordance with law and it was further a1.leged that after the rolls were prepared, under sub-rule (i-a) of rule 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Preparation, Revision and Publication of Electoral Rolls, Election and Selection of Councillors) Rules 1962 (hereinafter called "the rules") a copy of these rules had to be put on the notice-board and at a prominent place in the locality concerned. Held: Rule 4 (i-a) provides: - "4......(I-a) Public notice under sub-rule (I) shall be given by affixing a copy of the notice in Form I on the notice board of the Municipal office and at prominent places in the wards of the municipality and it shall also be announced in each ward by teat of drum." ...... Held: Rule 4 (i-a) provides: - "4......(I-a) Public notice under sub-rule (I) shall be given by affixing a copy of the notice in Form I on the notice board of the Municipal office and at prominent places in the wards of the municipality and it shall also be announced in each ward by teat of drum." ...... It talks of public notice under sub-rule (I) to be given by affixing a copy of the notice in Form I on the notice board of the Municipal office and at prominent places in the wards of the municipality and also by announcing in each ward by beat of drum. The scheme of rule 4 indicates, as is provided in sub-rule (2) of rule 4 that on such notice and the copies of the rolls being notified, if any person who claims to be registered as voter has not been registered, he can file his claim within a period of 20 days from the date of publication of the notice and thereafter the officer concerned after consideration of the claim may modify the electoral roll. The scheme of this rule therefore indicates that public notice which is contemplated in sub-rule (l-a) of rule 4 should be at a place which should be accessible to the public at large. A controversy was also raised about the phrase "prominent place"; but there is nothing on the basis of which it could be decided as to whether the Grasim Staff Club is or is not a prominent place. But it is undisputed that it is not a place which is accessible to all the people as admittedly entry to this club is restricted to its members only. The scheme of the rule indicates that after the electoral rolls are prepared a public notice is to be given and the people at large are to be told that if their names by mistake have not been included or their is any error in the names so included they are given a public notice to file their claims and objections. The term qualifying the word 'notice' used here is "public" and it is expected that such notice should be put up at a prominent place in the locality concerned. The term qualifying the word 'notice' used here is "public" and it is expected that such notice should be put up at a prominent place in the locality concerned. It therefore could not be disputed that what is contemplated is affixure of the notice of preparation of electoral rolls inviting claims and objections on a prominent place which is accessible to all, i. e., where all persons could go and see so that they would get an opportunity of filing their claims or objections if any. This rule requires such a notice to be notified to the public in three ways; (i) by affixure on the notice board of the municipal office; (ii) by affixure at a prominent place in the ward of the municipality; and (iii) by announcing in each ward by beat of drum. Affixure at the office of the municipal council is not disputed. As regards announcing by beat of drum, in the return it is stated that the announcement was made on loudspeakers in the locality which substantially complies with the requirement of announcement by beat of drum. However, it is not necessary for us to go into the question as to whether announcing by beat of drum is the same as announcing on loudspeakers as all the three requirements are essential as is indicated by the use of the conjunction "and" after each of them in the provision and admittedly the affixure on prominent place accessible to all is not done. Consequently, the electoral rolls for this ward, i. e. Ward No. 13, have not been notified as required under sub-rule (I-a) of rule 4. It is not contended that compliance with this provision is not mandatory. Apparently, this gives an opportunity to a voter, if his name is not included, to file his claim and get his name included in the voters list. The petitioner is one of such persons who claims that his right has been taken away from him because of failure on the part of the respondents to notify the electoral rolls as required under sub-rule (1-a) of rule 4. It is therefore clear that the electoral rolls ultimately finalized for ward No. 13 are not in accordance with law and they have to be quashed. Petition allowed.