Unholy haste

In a public notice dated September 30, 2008 which appeared in the Jam-e-Jamshed of October 5, 2008, it is noted that the trustees of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) have short listed applicants from the list of interveners who approached the joint charity commissioner in Application No. 18 of 2006 (U/S 41D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act).

This public notice was issued by the trustees on the same day as the order of the charity commissioner, i.e. September 30, 2008. That an order pronounced on that date was delivered to the BPP, that notice was given to trustees to consider the same, that a meeting was called and held within hours, the eligible candidates determined and that the public notice was thereafter issued, all on the same date, indicate unholy haste in the manner in which the process was conducted, more so when the trustees were just weeks away from being replaced after the elections. In fact, the period for filing objections was to end just after the elections, providing the new trustees with a fait accompli.

A number of questions arise, which require to be responded to, and information provided to the community prior to the confirmation of the proposed allotments. How/why was the process so hastened that an order of the charity commissioner pronounced on September 30, 2008 was delivered to the BPP office on the same day? Who collected the order from the charity commissio­ner’s office (which would never deliver it the same day in the normal course)?

Was a valid notice calling the meeting sent to all the trustees and did all the trustees attend or give approval for holding the meeting at such short notice? Did any trustee object to the procedure being conducted in such haste? Have all the trustees approved/signed the recommendation contained in the public notice?

The BPP has created various categories and a system (as approved by the trustees and currently in force) to objectively grade applicants as per the rules of the merit rating system referred to in the public notice. The notice, however, states that the short-listed applicants are from those who approached the joint charity commissioner. Does this mean that persons standing highest in the merit rating have not been recommended allotment since they did not join in the matter before the charity commissioner? Allotments have been made to persons who are not in the merit list.

The provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act are being misused by the persons spear-heading the complaint filed under Section 41D for the benefit of out-of-turn allotees listed in the public notice. Action under Section 41D arises out of improper dealing with the trust property. An action to remedy this cannot have the implication that those seeking corrective action be rewarded with out-of-turn allotment of flats.

In a verbal discussion with me Kersi Randeria of the Alert Zoroastrians Association (AZA) affirmed that only those who supported the AZA in the proceedings before the charity commissioner would be considered for allocation of flats, even if out of turn. Randeria is, I understand, on the BPP’s housing committee. On what grounds can the trustees ignore the rightful claims of those higher in the merit rating and allot out of turn to supporters of the AZA? Such an act smacks of improper dealing with trust property, apart from unwholesome electoral practice at the current time when AZA was supporting the Adult Franchise for Progress in the recent elections.

In view of the above, the proposed allotment as contained in the public notice should be considered objected to in principle, not being in accordance with the law and to the detriment of deserving beneficiaries identified as per the prevalent rules determining merit. As the incumbent trustees were on their way out, a decision to placate those in litigation against them is as offensive as it is illegal. To claim that the trustees were acting under the orders of the charity commissioner is nothing short of a travesty of justice and a misrepresentation of the legal facts.

RUSTOM J. VAKIL