A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 2787 of 1984 leave to add party is granted. Mr. D. K. Trivedi Asst. Government Pleader appears on behalf of the newly added party. ( 2 ) THESE two petitions are directed against the respondent-Palanpur Municipality. By a Resolution dated 28/02/1984 by which the Municipality decided to construct shopping center near Power House compound and construct about 300 shops. The Municipality by the impugned Resolution further decided that initially all the 300 shops may not be constructed and disposed of and 159 shops be constructed and be sold. It was further decided by the Municipality that for the shops which would be in the front line premium of Rs. 45 0 should be taken and for the rest of the shops which would be in the rear part of the shopping center premium of Rs. 3 0 should be taken. The amount of premium was required to be paid by the person concerned in three installments. It was also resolved that one who-so-ever gets the shop would have to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 100. 00 per month. From the Resolution it appears that the municipality was desirous to accommodate mostly poor and middle-class business people. Therefore the Municipality adopted the basis of giving the shops on premium basis and did not adopt the method of auctioning the property. Moreover the registration for the shops was to be made on the basis of First-come First-served. By the impugned Resolution it was also decided that booking should be kept open from 15/03/1984 to March 21 1984 or till it was fully booked whichever was earlier. The Resolution runs into about 10 typed pages and it is produced at Annexure G to Special Civil Application No 2787 of 1984. ( 3 ) THE Municipality gave advertisement to the aforesaid Resolution and made it known to the public that from 15/03/1984 onwards booking would start. One of the petitioners here challenged the legality and validity of the impugned Resolution passed by the Municipality before the Collector Palanpur. The Collector Palanpur passed order dated 11/05/1984 and rejected the application filed by the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 2787 of 1984. However it may be noted that the Collector made certain corrections in the Resolution by which he removed the transferability clause and made the rent note non-transferable. The Collector Palanpur passed order dated 11/05/1984 and rejected the application filed by the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 2787 of 1984. However it may be noted that the Collector made certain corrections in the Resolution by which he removed the transferability clause and made the rent note non-transferable. Except this minor modification the Collector did not make any change in the Resolution and rejected the application. Thereafter the petitioner moved this High Court on 25/05/1984 Another petition i. e. Special Civil Application No. 4342 of 1984 has also been filed in this High Court on 22/08/1984 Since both the petitions are directed against the same resolution of the Municipality and since the facts involved in both the petitions are almost identical respective counsels for the parties have requested that both the matters be heard together. By consent of the parties both the matters are taken up for hearing together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the Municipality is a trustee of the property which is vested in it under the provisions of Gujarat Municipalities Act. The Municipality cannot dispose of this property in an illegal and arbitrary manner. If the Municipality has adopted same basis for disposal of the property which is unreasonable and arbitrary. the decision of the Municipality is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that Immediately within 15 minutes of the opening of registration the President of the Municipality and this associates had rushed into the municipal office. Thereafter within 15 minutes the President had declared that the booking was over. It is also Alleged that at least Six persons who have got their names registered are closely related to one or other councilors. On this basis it is submitted that the basis First-come First-served adopted by the Municipality for allotment of shops is not only irrational and arbitrary but it leaves room for manipulation. As submitted by the counsel for the petitioners in this case manipulation has taken place and the office bearers of the Municipality have been successful to see that their relatives and close associates got their names registered at the earliest point of time. As submitted by the counsel for the petitioners in this case manipulation has taken place and the office bearers of the Municipality have been successful to see that their relatives and close associates got their names registered at the earliest point of time. ( 5 ) IT is an admitted position that the open piece of land on which the Municipality intends to construct shopping center is the property belonging to the Municipality and it vests in the Municipality. It is also an admitted position that the purpose for which the Municipality wanted to construct and dispose of the land was to see that poor and middle-class business people get an opportunity to have some place for business and they can settle themselves in life. As disclosed in the impugned Resolution this was the reason why the Municipality adopted the basis of allotting the shops by accepting premium of fixed amount and thereafter recover rent on monthly basis. This according to the Municipality was the method by which the people belonging to poor and middle-class section of the society can be helped. Certainly a laudable object. But the manner in which the property is sought to be distributed or allotted suggests that it has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the impugned Resolution. ( 6 ) THERE is nothing in the Resolution to show that only the people belonging to poor and middle-class section of the society would be eligible to get themselves registered for shop. On the contrary the basis adopted is First-come First-served. This is purely a matter of accident or one may say that this is a matter of managing things with the officers of the Municipality and some other persons whereby one can secure his position in the front part of the queue which may be there on the date of commencement of the booking. One who goes First in the queue is not necessarily a person belonging to poor and or middle-class section of the society. On the contrary it is very likely that a rich and wealthy person may be in a position to send his employees or hire someone and see that such person employed by him or hired by him goes on the spot earlier and stands first in the queue. On the contrary it is very likely that a rich and wealthy person may be in a position to send his employees or hire someone and see that such person employed by him or hired by him goes on the spot earlier and stands first in the queue. Such rich persons may even be in a position to Bet themselves registered in more than two-three names that is to say in the name of himself or herself or in the name of his her relatives. Therefore it is clear that when the manner and method of booting on the basis of First-come First served adopted by the Municipality is not only irrational and arbitrary but this has not even remotest nexus with the object sought to be achieved. In this view of the matter the impugned Resolution is required to be quashed and set aside. ( 7 ) IN above view of the matter it is not necessary to go into the details with Regard to the mala fides Alleged by the petitioners The petitioners have alleged that First-come First-served basis has been adopted by the Municipal officers including the President and other related councilors with a view to see that the relatives and close associates are accommodated and given unfair advantage. However when the Resolution is being quashed and set aside on the ground that the basis adopted by the Municipality is not rational and reasonable and that it has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved it is not necessary to go into there allegations. ( 8 ) COUNSEL for the petitioners has relied upon decision of this High Court in the case of Bhagubhai v. Porbandar Municipality reported in AIR 1984 Gujarat 134. Which referring to the entire scheme of the Act and particularly the provisions of sec. 65 and 80 of the Act it is observed that the Municipality is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and the Municipality is the trustee of all the property vested in it and a statutory duty is cast upon it to deal with the property as trustee thereof. It is further held therein that simply because the law permits and puts only restrictions as provided under sec. 65 it does not mean that the Municipality can act arbitrarily in the manner not consistent with the normally accepted principles of administration of public properties. It is further held therein that simply because the law permits and puts only restrictions as provided under sec. 65 it does not mean that the Municipality can act arbitrarily in the manner not consistent with the normally accepted principles of administration of public properties. Applying the aforesaid principles laid down by this High Court and in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case it is abundantly clear that the Municipality has not adopted any rational basis for disposing of the property and has acted in an irrational and arbitrary manner. The criteria adopted by the Municipality are also unreasonable. In this view of the matter the impugned Resolution is required to be quashed and set aside. ( 9 ) IN the result the petitions are allowed The Resolution (Annexure G) dated 28/02/1984 passed by the respondent-Municipality is quashed and set aside. All the actions taken pursuant to the afore- said Resolution also shall stand canceled. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (ATP) Petition allowed: rule made absolute. .