ORDER :- The petitioner is the Rural India Handicrafts Marketing Association. It is a Society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Cultural and Scientific Charitable Societies Registration Act having registration No. 499/1993. It is stated that the Society is a secular voluntary association working for the welfare of the craftsman community. Among its main objectives include the full-fledged development and promotion of handicrafts through the organisation of exhibition and sales of handicrafts throughout the country. According to the petitioner, it has been successful in assisting Indian Craftsmen to find markets for their products and thereby of immense help to them in avoiding middle men and conventional shop owners. The Society decided to conduct Onam Exhibition-cum-Sale in Mamman Mappila Town Hall, Kottayam from 8-8-1999 to 24-8-1999. The decision was taken as early as in August, 1998. Pursuant to the decision, the petitioner forwarded an application to the first respondent on 31-8-1998 to let the Mamman Mappila Town Hall to the petitioner from 8-8-1999 to 24-8-1999. It is further stated that as per the direction of the first respondent, viz. Secretary, Kottayam Municipality, the petitioner made written requisition to transfer Rs. 12,000/- which was remaining with the first respondent as security amount for the hall remitted the previous year. The petitioner thereafter remitted Rs. 10,000/- on 22-12-1998. The copy of the receipt is produced as Exhibit P. 2. It is further stated that on 28-6-1999 again another amount of Rs. 10,000/- was remitted, evidenced by Exhibit P 3, pursuant to the direction of the first respondent. Another amount of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited on 16-7-1999, evidenced by Exhibit P4. According to the petitioner, it was under the impression that the hall has been allotted to the Society. On 17-7-1999 when the petitioner sought permission of the 1st respondent to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 21,000/-, that was refused. The petitioner has produced Exhibit P 5, which is the agenda for the Council meeting on 5-7-1999. Item-11 of the agenda is as follows :- (Vernacular matter omitted) It also shows that the petitioner deposited the amount as per the directions of the Municipality. According to the petitioner since already the hall was allotted to the petitioner, the Society had made all arrangements for the proposed exhibition. Since the Society was not allowed to pay the balance amount, the petitioner apprehended that the hall will not be allotted to the petitioner. According to the petitioner since already the hall was allotted to the petitioner, the Society had made all arrangements for the proposed exhibition. Since the Society was not allowed to pay the balance amount, the petitioner apprehended that the hall will not be allotted to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the Original Petition has been filed. 2. The prayer in the Original Petition was to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the respondents to allot the K. C. Mamman Mappila hall to the petitioner as agreed upon and for other reliefs. Originally there were only two respondents, viz., the Kottayam Municipality and the District Collector, Kottayam. The Original Petition came up for admission on 28-7-1999. On that day, the Standing Counsel for the Municipality as well as the Government Pleader took notice for the respective respondents and the matter was posted for instructions to 30-7-1999. On 5-8-1999, an order was passed on C.M.P. 31418/1999. By that order, the hall was given for five days from 8-8-1999 to the petitioner. 3. In the meanwhile, an impleading petition was filed on behalf of Kairali Arts and Crafts of Kerala, hereinafter referred to as 'Kairali', as C.M.P. No. 33666/1999 and it was prayed that it may be impleaded as the additional third respondent. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Municipality. The affidavit filed along with the impleading petition by Kairali also gives details. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Municipality, it is stated as follows : There is no agreement to allot the K. C. Mamman Mappila Hall to the petitioner for the period from 8-8-1999 to 24-8-1999 and the petition under Article 226 is not maintainable. The filing of Exhibit P1 application by the petitioner is admitted. But, so far as the remittance of the amounts evidenced by exhibits P2 to P4, the counter affidavit says that there was no direction to pay the amount. In paragraph 8 of the counter it is stated that the Secretary is competent to confirm any reservation of the hall only for a period of five days and not in excess thereof. There was no decision taken to allot the hall to the petitioner at any point of time. In paragraph 8 of the counter it is stated that the Secretary is competent to confirm any reservation of the hall only for a period of five days and not in excess thereof. There was no decision taken to allot the hall to the petitioner at any point of time. Regarding Kairali, it is stated that in March, 1999 Exhibit R 1(a) application was filed on behalf of Kairali for allotment of the hall from 9-8-1999 to 22-8-1999. It contains an endorsement of the Chairman to sanction the request. The first respondent has produced Exhibits R1(b) to R1(d). Exhibit R1(b) is a letter addressed to the District Collector, Kottayam by the Assistant Director, Government of India, Ministry of Textiles, Office of the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts), Handicrafts Corporation, Thrissur requesting for allotment of the hall to the Kairali. Exhibit R1(c) is a letter from Kairali to the Assistant Director, Office of the Development Commissioner of Handicrafts, Thrissur stating that the practice of giving the hall to private parties on early dates should be stopped. Exhibit R1(d) is a Note from the Minister for Local Administration to the Chairman, Municipal Council, Kottayam, to allot the hall to Kairali. After receipt of the above Note, according to the counter, a special meeting of the Council was held on 30-7-1999. In that meeting on a majority of 12.11 it was decided to allot the hall to Kairali, subject to the orders in the Original Petition. The counter further says that since Kairali is a Governmental undertaking and there are recommendations from authorities under the Government, there was nothing improper in allotting the hall to Kairali. 6. In the affidavit filed by Kairali along with the petition for impleading it is highlighted that it is the only State Government undertaking in Kerala engaged in the promotion and sale of handicrafts. The impleading petitioner doubts the date in Exhibit P 1. It is stated that arrangements have been made by Kairali for the conduct of the exhibition. 7. I heard Mr. G. Surarshan for the petitioner, Mr. V. Giri on behalf of the Municipality and Mr. P. R. Raman for Kairali, the impleading petitioner. During the course of the hearing, the following documents were shown to me : (1) The proceedings of the Kottayam Municipal Council dated 5-7-1999. 7. I heard Mr. G. Surarshan for the petitioner, Mr. V. Giri on behalf of the Municipality and Mr. P. R. Raman for Kairali, the impleading petitioner. During the course of the hearing, the following documents were shown to me : (1) The proceedings of the Kottayam Municipal Council dated 5-7-1999. (2) The bye-law regarding the allotment of K. C. Mamman Mappila Hall issued by the kottayam Municipality under Section 567 of the Kerala Municipalities Act. (3) The notice issued by the Kottayam Municipality dated 23-7-1999 for the special meeting on 30-7-1999. (4) The proceedings of the meeting of the Municipal Council, Kottayam, which was held on 30-7-1999. Since these documents are not produced in the proceedings by either side, I order these documents to be retained along with the Judge's papers. In the Minutes of the meeting of the Municipal Council on 5-7-1999, as item No. 11 it is stated thus :- (Vernacular matter omitted) 8. Now, I shall refer to the proceedings of the Municipal Council meeting held on 30-7-1999. The consideration before the Council was to cancel the resolution in item No. 11 of the Council dated 5-7-1999 and to allot the hall to Kairali. There was no unanimity regarding the proposal. Hence, voting was taken. 11 members voted against and 14 voted in favour and 1 member did not vote. Hence, the Council cancelled the resolution on item No. 11 of the meeting dated 5-7-1999 and decided to allot the hall to Kairali, subject to the decision in the present original petition. 9. From the above facts, it is clear that the petitioner's application was considered by the Municipal Council on 5-7-1999 and it was decided to allot the hall to the petitioner since it had booked the hall by depositing advance earlier. The proceedings of the meeting dated 30-7-1999 merely cancelled the resolution dated 5-7-1999 on the basis of majority and decided to grant it to Kairali. 10. Now, let us look at the bye-laws. As already stated, the bye-law is issued by the Kottayam Municipality with regard to the allotment of the K. C. Mamman Mappila Hall under Section 567 of the Kerala Municipalities Act. The bye-law is published in the Kerala Gazette dated 30-12-1997. The bye-law has come into force with effect from 12-11-1997. 10. Now, let us look at the bye-laws. As already stated, the bye-law is issued by the Kottayam Municipality with regard to the allotment of the K. C. Mamman Mappila Hall under Section 567 of the Kerala Municipalities Act. The bye-law is published in the Kerala Gazette dated 30-12-1997. The bye-law has come into force with effect from 12-11-1997. Bye-law 6 states as follows : 'If on the day requested the hall is lying vacant, the hall can be allotted to the applicant on deposit of advance rent and security'. Bye-law-7 states as follows : 'If there are more than one applications for a particular day, then the hall shall be reserved in favour of the person who has filed the application and deposited the amount first'. Under bye-law-16, the Secretary can allot the hall only for five days and if the hall is to be allotted for a particular person for more than five days, then the council has to sanction the application. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it can be seen that the petitioner made the application first and also made deposits as requested by the Secretary, evidenced by Exhibits P2 to P4. He further states that at the meeting held on 5-7-1999 it was decided to allot the hall to the petitioner and that all arrangements have been made by the petitioner for the conduct of the exhibition. Hence, it was not proper on the part of the Municipality to rescind the allotment in favour of the petitioner and allot the hall to the additional respondent, Kairali. It was also argued that the allotment was made to Kairali due to pressure from various Governmental agencies, including the Minister. The bye-law does not provide for any preferential treatment to Government agencies. On the other hand, the principle of the bye-law appears to be first come first served'. 12. Learned counsel for the additional 3rd respondent-Kairali Mr. P. R. Raman contended that Kairali made the application on 9-3-1999. That application was not considered at the meeting held on 5-7-1999. It was to cure the injustice done to the additional 3rd respondent that another meeting was held on 30-7-1999. He further contended that Kairali being a Governmental institution is entitled to preference. 13. P. R. Raman contended that Kairali made the application on 9-3-1999. That application was not considered at the meeting held on 5-7-1999. It was to cure the injustice done to the additional 3rd respondent that another meeting was held on 30-7-1999. He further contended that Kairali being a Governmental institution is entitled to preference. 13. Counsel for the Municipality submitted that as a matter of fact no allotment order has been issued to the petitioner and there is no agreement. Hence, the petitioner cannot pray for allotting the hall. During the course of hearing, a suggestion was made whether any compromise can be arrived at by directing the petitioner and the additional 3rd respondent to occupy the hall for equal days. But, there was no agreement between the parties. One of the contentions raised by the counsel for the 3rd respondent is that the application of Kairali was not considered in the meeting held on 5-7-1999. Exhibit P5 is the agenda for the meeting held on 5-7-1999. A perusal of item No. 11 shows that the application of the petitioner as well as of the additional 3rd respondent were placed before the Council and the decision of the Council was to allot the hall to the petitioner because it had deposited the amount first. So also, as already stated, the petitioner deposited the amount as per the directions of the Municipality. It was subsequently that a meeting was convened on 30-7-1999. The notice for the meeting states the following agenda :- Probably it is the Note referred to as Exhibit R1(d). It is pursuant to this Note that the meeting was convened and a decision taken to allot the hall to the additional 3rd respondent-Kairali. The above facts would show that the Municipal Council merely acted upon the Note issued by the Minister for Local Administration dated 21-7-1999 and changed its earlier decision. It is not known whether it was brought to the notice of the Minister that a decision had been taken earlier by the Council to allot the hall to the petitioner. A perusal of the proceedings of the Council meeting held on 30-7-1999 does not show that they had allotted the hall to the additional 3rd respondent on the basis of the bye-law or that the earlier allotment in favour of the petitioner was against bye-laws. A perusal of the proceedings of the Council meeting held on 30-7-1999 does not show that they had allotted the hall to the additional 3rd respondent on the basis of the bye-law or that the earlier allotment in favour of the petitioner was against bye-laws. It may be true that a Governmental undertaking is entitled to all support and all preference at the hands of the Government. But that cannot be done arbitrarily. So long as the bye-law stands as it is, I am of the view that the decision taken by the Municipal Council on 30-7-1999 is arbitrary and against the provisions of law. No doubt, the decision has been taken subject to the result of this writ petition. The Court is also pained on the fact that in the counter filed by the Municipality no reference is made to the resolution passed by the Municipal Council on 5-7-1999 allotting the hall to the petitioner. The Municipality is expected to divulge to this Court the true facts. It is possible to commit mistakes and one can be excused for the committed mistakes but there is no excuse for suppression of facts. The Municipalities and the Municipal Councils are discharging very great functions and by the 74th amendment of the Constitution of India, great power is vested in them. An ordinary citizen looks on the Municipality to do justice and act in accordance with law. It is also unfortunate to note that the Municipality has taken a contention that a writ is not maintainable forgetting the fact that the Municipality is nothing but a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution and its decisions are subject to review by this Court. This is not a contract to be enforced in the civil Court. It emanates from the violation of the bye-laws. In the above view of the facts, the Original Petition is allowed. There will be a direction to the Municipality to allot the K. C. Mamman Mappila Hall to the petitioner for conducting the exhibition from 8-8-1999 to 24-8-1999. Already the petitioner had made certain deposits. If any balance amount is to be payable, that will be paid within three days from today. Petition allowed.