Wapiz appeal admitted

A divisional bench of the Bombay High Court on April 30, 2007 admitted an appeal by three World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) founder members challenging the validity of the withdrawn resignations of four trustees of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP).

No stay however was granted on the functioning of the four trustees as the BPP counsel Darius Khambatta noted, "No stay has been prayed for.” A stay could have possibly meant that the electoral process now started for electing new trustees by adult franchise would be put on hold.

Justices R. M. S. Khandeparkar and D. G. Karnik rejected Khambatta’s suggestion that the hearing on admission be kept pending till October 2007 so as not to interfere with the election process and also by which time all the trustees would have resigned as per the commitment made by them in their petition for introducing adult franchise before Bombay High Court judge A. M. Khanwilkar.

WAPIZ founder member Homi Ranina who is leading the legal battle on behalf of WAPIZ co-trustees Khojeste Mistree, Hoshang Wania and Yazdi Desai termed the divisional bench’s decision as being the "right” one.

When asked if the issue became academic as the matter would not come up for hearing for six months or more, Ranina countered stating the petitioners’ would move the court for a "notice of motion” to hold a hearing in June 2007. The petitioner’s counsel Virender Tulzapulkar did not ask the court for the hearing to be expedited, but Ranina said they would now petition for it.

If they succeed in ousting the four trustees, BPP chairman Minoo Shroff, Dinshaw Tamboly, Maneck Engineer and Burjor Antia, then the scheme for adult franchise framed by all the six trustees could also fail as four of the six would have been disqualified from holding office at the time. Whether the remaining two constitute a quorum and whether chairman emeritus Jamshed N. Guzder voted on the issue and if his vote can be counted, is not known.

On April 26 Khambatta urged Khandeparkar and Karnik to dispense with the appeal in light of the trustees committing to resign once new trustees are elected in six months’ time. But Tulzapulkar argued otherwise.

Election preparations

In the meanwhile preparations for the election of seven trustees to the BPP are already under way. Both The Bombay Samachar and the Jam-e-Jamshed weekly referred to the formation of a ginger group termed Adult Franchise for Progress (AFP) comprising members of the Parsi Press and other like-minded citizens.

The objective of AFP is "a very limited function, namely to ensure that the forthcoming elections are held in a free and transparent manner and the interests of all groups are safeguarded,” noted the Samachar’s "Parsi Tari Arsi” column of April 22, 2007.

The Jame issue of the same date stated, "The AFP volunteers will make available forms” for people to register. The next Sunday’s edition listed names of 25 volunteers in various parts of the city courtesy of the Alert Zoroastrians’ Association (AZA).

The WAPIZ Page in the Afternoon Despatch and Courier issue of April 26, 2007 aside from attacking the BPP trustees for "having failed miserably in their duty to protect the community from vested interests (namely the liberal elements)” exhorted Parsis to register to vote. The names and telephone numbers of 17 volunteers in different parts of Bombay were listed to assist voters with registration procedures.

BPP trustee Dinshaw Mehta said the BPP will have to approach Khanwilkar once again for clarification on the scheme. The jurist who delivered the historic judgment introducing adult franchise in the Bombay Parsi community had stated the registers would close by May 31, 2007 while the BPP scheme states 60 days before the elections. The elections will be scheduled sometime between October and December 2007.

Mehta said photo identity cards would be issued for new entrants to the election register. For those formerly registered, the old certificates would be valid. Duplicate certificates would be issued to those who had lost or misplaced the earlier ones.

The battleline for the trusteeship elections appears to be forming mainly between AZA and WAPIZ, with the AZA representing the liberal to the middle-of-the-road Parsis and WAPIZ the orthodox elements.

Meanwhile speculation is rife on who may be the potential candidates for trusteeship. Mehta says he has "not yet decided” whether to stand for the next election. Asked what issues would determine his decision he noted "family objections… the family is being maligned unnecessarily.”

Who else did he feel would be standing? Social worker Arnavaz Mistry, former municipal corporator and former BPP trustee Rustom Tirandaz "would definitely stand,” he said and WAPIZ founder member and unsuccessful candidate for BPP trusteeship Yazdi Desai was a likely candidate.

BPP trustee Dinshaw Tamboly said he had "not even given a thought” whether to stand again. He also cited family pressures and the hostile environment in which the trustees have to function.

Mistree was out of town for two weeks and hence unavailable for comment. His wife, Firoza, said she too had just returned from out of town and was unaware of any developments.

WAPIZ activist Anahita Desai stated that her husband Yazdi "is going to stand.” Other WAPIZ candidates had "not been decided” as yet. As WAPIZ was basically preparing only for the seat vacated by the death of sitting trustee Silloo Kavarana, they had not "really thought” of other potential candidates. Amongst potential WAPIZ candidates the names bandied about are Hoshang Wania, a chartered accountant who has unsuccessfully contested earlier for the BPP and former BPP trustee and taxation lawyer Ranina. Ranina, however stated he was not a candidate. "I’ve served ten years and that’s enough,” he told Parsiana.

According to some insiders BPP trustee Maneck Engineer may stand for reelection. BPP trustees Dadi Engineer and Burjor Antia may not have the grassroots organization required to run a testing and trying campaign. Shroff cannot seek reelection as he will have served for 21 years, the maximum period permitted for a trustee. "Even if I was eligible I wouldn’t stand,” Shroff told Parsiana. "Enough is enough.”

The larger interest

Khanwilkar’s judgment delivered on April 1, 2007 notes that the BPP election scheme has been amended eight times in the past. "I have no hesitation in observing that the proposed amended scheme as has been put forth by the trustees is in the general interest of the trust… assuming that trustees were to recommend the change in quick succession, that by itself can be no reason to throw out the proposal for amendment.”

As regards the allegation that the proposed change is only to thwart the capture of the erstwhile Anjuman Committee by WAPIZ, the judge noted "It is too much to assume that the proposed amendment is intended only to displace the newly elected Anjuman Committee. The proposed amendment is not of the kind which would bring about the change only for a limited period or for matters pertaining to the election of the Anjuman Committee as such. The proposed amendment, as is intended, if given effect to, will prevail for posterity.”

Justifying the call for adult franchise Khanwilkar stated: "It is seen that the same was a contentious issue pending consideration since long and the trustees in their wisdom have now unanimously resolved that it is imperative to introduce such a change, even if it is too late. The argument that there is nothing wrong with the present dispensation of Anjuman Committee can be no basis to answer this issue in the negative. Especially, when the proposed amendment is supported by all the Petitioning Trustees unanimously. It will be inappropriate for this Court to take (an)other view or not to approve such amendment. Taking any other view would result in sitting over the wisdom of the trustees who are unanimous on the issue and have advisedly recommended (the) change after due deliberations.”

Regarding the procedure for resignation of trustees, Khanwilkar noted, "It is only after the board accepts the resignation, the same ought to take effect and not in (an) earlier point of time. In other words, mere tabling of the resignation in the meeting will not be sufficient, but the resignation will have to be accepted by the board of trustees so as to make it effective.”

Lastly regarding the WAPIZ counsel’s request for a stay on the proceedings, the judge countered: "I fail to understand as to why the operation of the whole Judgment and order should be stayed. It was pointed out to the learned counsel that the preparatory arrangement of enrolment work will proceed for the time being till the end of May 2007; for which reason it is not necessary to stall the further activities in terms of the order passed today.”