Quasi-Judicial Bodies Discretion on Delays Upheld

The court ruled that independent quasi-judicial bodies cannot be compelled to condone delays universally, emphasizing that discretion must be exercised based on individual case circumstances. It clarified that while the Circular aimed to allow flexibility in condoning delays, it should not mandate blanket condonation. The court required the State to submit an affidavit detailing Circular implementation and Devasthan land status. The case was adjourned, and prior interim orders were adjusted accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Continuation of the interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 2759 of 2011.
2. Challenge to the Circular dated 30.07.2010 and consequential orders dated 29.02.2016 and 06.05.2016.
3. Authority and discretion of quasi-judicial bodies in condoning delays.
4. Regulatory mechanisms for Devasthan lands and the role of the State Government.
5. Constitutional provisions concerning religious freedom and the State's regulatory powers.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Continuation of the Interim Order:
The court extensively heard arguments regarding the continuation of the interim order from Writ Petition No. 2759 of 2011, making it applicable to all related matters.

2. Challenge to the Circular and Consequential Orders:
The petitioners, residents from various villages in District Palghar, challenged a Circular dated 30.07.2010 and the consequential orders dated 29.02.2016 and 06.05.2016. They argued that the Circular directed authorities to review the status of lands, their ownership, transfers, and revenue entries, emphasizing that these lands are class two occupancies. The petitioners contended that the Circular virtually commanded the condonation of delays in legal proceedings, which interfered with the discretionary power of quasi-judicial authorities.

3. Authority and Discretion of Quasi-Judicial Bodies:
The court acknowledged the petitioners' argument that a quasi-judicial authority or any court exercising judicial powers cannot be commanded to condone delays. The court emphasized that discretionary power must be exercised judiciously and independently, without undue interference from the State Government. The court referenced several Supreme Court judgments, including *The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohammad Naim* and *Narendra Madivalapa Kheni Vs. Manikrao Patil and Ors.*, underscoring the principle that even the highest authority cannot control the discretion of subordinate authorities exercising quasi-judicial powers.

4. Regulatory Mechanisms for Devasthan Lands:
The State Government issued the Circular to address alleged irregularities and illegalities in the management of Devasthan lands, particularly in relation to the Tulja Bhavani Temple. The Circular directed the collection of data about Devasthan Inam Lands, verification of ownership, and scrutiny of documents. The court noted that the Circular aimed to regulate secular acts of religious bodies without interfering with individuals' religious freedoms. The court highlighted that the petitioners did not challenge other parts of the Circular, which allowed for physical inspections and reviews of land allotments and transfers.

5. Constitutional Provisions and State's Regulatory Powers:
The court considered the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, emphasizing that the State's regulatory mechanisms do not interfere with individuals' rights to profess their religion. The court reiterated that the State could regulate the secular activities of religious bodies to ensure compliance with statutory schemes. The court referenced Supreme Court judgments, including *Pancham Chand and Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.* and *State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Sarangdharsingh Shivdassingh Chavan and Anr.*, to emphasize that public functionaries must enforce the law without undue interference from higher authorities.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that independent functionaries exercising quasi-judicial powers cannot be directed to condone delays in all cases. The discretion to condone delays must be exercised based on the peculiar facts of each case. The court clarified that the Circular should be construed to apply liberal principles in condoning delays but not to mandate condonation in all cases. The court requested an affidavit from the State to provide details about the implementation of the Circular and the status of Devasthan lands. The matter was adjourned for further hearing, and prior interim orders were vacated or modified accordingly.

---