( 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. 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 shop