“Strict rules must apply”

When does a resignation letter take effect? This was the question before Bombay High Court Justice Roshan S. Dalvi on February 5, 2007. The plaintiffs, community activists and The World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) founder trustees, Khojeste Mistree, Yazdi Desai and Hoshang Wania had filed an originating summons in the High Court alleging the four trustees of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) who had submitted their letters of resignation in June 2006 could not withdraw them.

The six BPP trustees in their reply alleged the formalities for submitting the letters were not complied with, hence they could not have said to officially resign. The judge concurred, ruling against the petition.

Counsel for the plaintiffs, Virendra Tulzapurkar argued that the act of resignation was a "unilateral” one and that the BPP election scheme did not contemplate "acceptance.”

Three trustees, Dinshaw Tamboly, Maneck Engineer and Burjor Antia submitted their letters of resignation to BPP chairman Minoo R. Shroff on June 19, 2006 stating they were "appalled at the turn of events” at the BPP and found it impossible to continue functioning with their co-trustee Dinshaw Mehta. Shroff then also wrote a letter of resignation and all four of them informed the Anjuman Committee of their decision through a letter in the Jam-e-Jamshed.

Shortly thereafter, a joint statement was published stating that at the behest of the two remaining trustees, Mehta and Dadi Engineer, the four had agreed to "rejoin the board,” said Tulzapurkar. There is "no provision for withdrawing” the resignations, he argued. By doing so, the four trustees were "usurping the power of the Anjuman Committee” whose responsibility it is to elect trustees once a vacancy arises.

The lawyer argued that the resignation letters did not have to be addressed to all the trustees and that anyway all the trustees were made aware of the letter and there was no stipulation in the BPP election scheme that the letters had to be submitted to the BPP office. The letters were not recorded in the inward register of the BPP.

Counsel for the trustees Iqbal Chagla along with Darius Khambata and Shyam Mehta argued that the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 specifies a change report has to be filed at the time of submitting a resignation and it was up to the charity commissioner to decide whether to accept the resignations or not.

"Strict rules must apply,” stated Chagla keeping in mind the "onerous responsibility trustees of public trusts have.” It is "not open (to them) to just send a letter… the discretion of the charity commissioner has to be exercised.”

Terming the Bombay Public Trusts Act "a complete code,” Chagla advised the court to "look to this Act and nothing else” while determining the validity of the resignations. If there was a conflict between the BPP scheme and the Trusts Act, the latter must prevail.” If it is contrary… it is meaningless and of no consequence.

Dalvi negated the summons on February 8, 2007. The written judgment is awaited. The advocate on record for the plaintiffs was Nana Yelkar while Doijode and Associates represented the BPP.

As regards the petition for introducing adult franchise, Tulzapurkar requested Bombay High Court judge S. A. Bode time to receive Dalvi’s judgment so his clients could then decide whether to appeal the decision.

As several interveners also wished to be heard, Bode adjourned the hearing for two weeks. Among the interveners are Parvez Driver represented by noted lawyer Rusi Sethna fighting on behalf of the donors and homeopath Dr Viraf Kapadia who is against the donors being given a second vote.