B. N. KIRPAL, J. ( 1 ) ). In this writ petition the petitioners challenge validity of Sec. 65 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 and also the decision taken by the respondent-Municipality to let out some terraces on Municipal building to a group of 24 lawyers. ( 2 ) ). The petitioners themselves are a class of persons who are stated to be interested in seeing that the Municipality acts in accordance with law and they are also interested in the space on the terraces of building known as "khushboo Shopping Centre" in Deesa town. Coming first to the validity of Sec. 65 of The Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, the same reads as follows :"65. (1) A Municipality shall be competent, subject to the restriction contained in subsee. (2), to lease, sell or otherwise transfer any movable or immovable property which may, for the purposes of this Act, have become vested in or been acquired by it: and so far as is not inconsistent with the provisions and purposes of this Act, to enter into and perform all such contracts as it may consider necessary or expedient in order to carry into effect the said provisions and purposes. (2) In the case of every lease or sale of land under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 146 and of a lease of immovable property for a term exceeding ten years and of every sale or other transfer of such immovable property, the market value of which exceeds one lakh of rupees, the previous permission of the State Government is required : [provided that in the case of a lease or sale of land under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 146 no such permission shall be granted if such land forms a street or part of a street which has been declared to be a public street under Sec. 148 ] (3) In the case - (a) of a lease for a period exceeding one year or of a sale or other transfer of immovable property the market value of which does not exceed one lakh of rupees or contract for the purchase of any immovable property; (b) of every contract which will involve expenditure not covered by a budget grant; (d) of every contract the performance of which cannot be completed within the official year current at the date of the contract; the sanction of the Municipality by a resolution passed at a general meeting is required. (4) In a Municipality - (a) every contract under or for any purpose of this Act shall be made on behalf of the Municipality by the Chief Officer; (b) no such contract for any purpose which the Chief Officer is not empowered by this Act to carry out without the approval or sanction of some other Municipal authority, shall be made by him until or unless such approval or sanction has first of all been duly given; (c) no contract which will involve an expenditure exceeding one thousand rupees shall be made by the Chief Officer unless otherwise authorised in this behalf by the Municipality except with the approval or sanction of the committee concerned; (d) every contract made by the Chief Officer involving an expenditure exceeding five hundred rupees and not exceeding one thousand rupees shall be reported by him, within fifteen days after the same has been made, to the committee concerned; (e) the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply to every variation or discharge of a contract to the same extent as to an original contract. (5) No contract shall be binding on a Municipality unless the requirements of this section have been complied with. " ( 3 ) ). The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the said provision gives unbridled power to the Municipality to give on lease the municipal property to anyone of its liking and on the ground of excessive delegation, the said section impugns. ( 4 ) SECTION 65 gives power to the Municipality to sell, lease and enter into contracts in respect of Municipal property. ( 4 ) SECTION 65 gives power to the Municipality to sell, lease and enter into contracts in respect of Municipal property. The Municipality has various functions set out. inter alia in Chapter VI and Secs. 87 to 92 of the said act. Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 65 gives Municipality the power to sell, lease or transfer any movable or immovable property which may, for the purposes of this Act, have become vested in or been acquired by it. Such sale, lease or transfer is governed by the procedure prescribed in Sec. 65, where the market value of the property exceeds 1 lakh of rupees, the previous permission of the State Government is required, but where the value is less than 1 lakh rupees, sub-sec. (3) requires the sanction of the Municipality in this regard. ( 5 ) ). The said provision does not specifically state that the property shall be disposed of at the market value, but reference to the market value is contained in sub-sec. (2) and in sub-sec. (3), only with regard to the question as to whether the permission of the State Government is required or not. In the very nature of its duties, as contained in aforesaid Chapter VI of the Gujarat municipality Act, a Municipality would not ordinarily be required to give on lease or transfer property at less than market value. It is indeed true that normally one would expect that the sale of the property would take place at the market price, but as regards the lease is concerned, the Municipality will, in all probability have more discretion. In any event, the Municipality has to act with reference to the function which it will be required to be discharged and for the public benefit. ( 6 ) ). It is difficult for us to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in every case where the property is supposed to be disposed of, it can be done only by public auction. There is no provision in Sec. 65 of the Act to that effect. Of course, the Municipality cannot dispose of its property for an ulterior reason or not for the purposes of the Act, nor can it circumvent the provisions of the Act to directly or indirectly give undue benefit to persons or a class of persons. There is no provision in Sec. 65 of the Act to that effect. Of course, the Municipality cannot dispose of its property for an ulterior reason or not for the purposes of the Act, nor can it circumvent the provisions of the Act to directly or indirectly give undue benefit to persons or a class of persons. This can, however, not prevent the municipality from considering favourably the demands or the needs of a section of society. Section 65 of the Act contains sufficient safeguards and does not, in our opinion, suffer from the vice of excessive delegation. The challenge to the said provision is without any basis. ( 7 ) ). As far as the allotment of the terrace rights of the Khushboo Shopping centre are concerned, the earlier resolution which had been passed by the municipality on 21-3-1992 has been permanently suspended by the order of the Collector on 30-4-1992 and by the Director of Municipality on 12-10- 1993. No further orders are called for as the Municipality is bound to act in accordance with law. This petition stands disposed of accordingly. Interim order stands vacated. The possession of the property will revert back to the municipality. .