BPP: The endless wait

Another futile day in court. With two ongoing partly heard cases due for hearing the divisional bench of Justices Dr S. Radhakrishnan and Anoop V. Mohta stated they were willing to hear the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) vs Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) resignations and elections appeal after the other matters were heard. But that could have meant an endless wait. The BPP counsel Darius Khambatta instead asked for another fixed date for the hearing which was set for January 8, 2008.

Khambatta argued that the matter should be expeditiously heard as critics of the BPP alleged the trustees "were dragging their feet” in the matter. Radhakrishnan misheard Khambatta assuming he alleged the court was causing the delay.

After explaining that that was not at all his contention ("Would I say such a thing?”) Khambatta requested the court to at least set a date for the election subject to the final outcome of the WAPIZ appeal. WAPIZ counsel Virender Tulzapurkar opposed the request. WAPIZ had challenged the right of the four trustees (Minoo Shroff, Dinshaw Tamboly, Maneck Engineer and Burjor Antia) to withdraw their letters of resignation, alleging once the letters were submitted they were irrevocable. Bombay High Court Judge Roshan Dalvi ruled in favor of the trustees and WAPIZ went into appeal.

Khambatta pointed out to the judges that Bombay High Court Justice A. N. Khanwilkar had sanctioned an election scheme for BPP trustees on the basis of adult franchise. He ordered the elections be held by October 2007.

The BPP administration including the chief executive officer Behram Dastur who were present in Khanwil­kar’s court that day in April said October was too short a period within which to register voters and prepare a voters’ list. But other petitioners in court were insistent the election be held by October as they felt that the BPP was playing for time. Khanwilkar then told the petitioners that should the trustees require time beyond October they could apply to the court for an extension.

But once the WAPIZ appeal was admitted, the question of an extension was linked to the trustees’ right to remain in office. If the resignations were binding then the BPP did not have the required quorum of three to sanction the adult franchise scheme.

The irony of the delay is that had WAPIZ not filed the suit all six trustees (the seat of the late trustee Silloo Kavarana is still vacant) would have resigned by now and elections would have been held for seven new trustees.

As Ushta, the Zoroastrian Studies newsletter, of March and June 2007 published by WAPIZ founder trustee Khojeste Mistree states, "a legal case can fall on any side, in favor of the deserving and the undeserving… as they say there is many a slip betwixt the cup and the lip and some players, have a long reach, which may even ensure a suitable outcome, for them, nevertheless no war is worth fighting unless you really believe in what you are fighting for.”

In the meanwhile the injunction given by the charity commissioner in response to an appeal filed by the Alert Zoroastrians Association (AZA) has more or less stymied the financial and property dealings of the BPP. As a result around 220 flats (constructed and under construction) now lie vacant or unallotted as all allotments have been stayed.

Caught between WAPIZ, AZA, the Bombay High Court and the charity commissioner, the functioning of the community’s premier institution is now paralyzed.