“Far enough”

The leaders of the Alert Zoroastrians Association assert that occupation of new Bombay Parsi Punchayet’s (BPP) new flats at Panthaky Baug and elsewhere have not been held up by them.

In a meeting with Parsiana on January 4, 2008, Kersi Randeria, Percy Patel and Zeree Jehangirji stated the 230 flats pending for allocation/occupation as mentioned in "Far enough” (Editorial Viewpoint, Parsiana, December 21, 2007) were either delayed due to municipal requirements not being met or incompletion of the structures themselves.

They allege the trustees wanted to allocate flats which would not be ready for occupation for a year or two. What was the hurry to decide allotment when the trustees would all be stepping down from office shortly, assuming the Bombay High Court upholds the trustees’ resignations were not valid and elections are held? they query.

As for around 52 flats at Panthaky Baug in Andheri that are ready for occupation but not handed over to allottees, the AZA leadership claims this delay is due to a development plan road not being constructed in the colony. By not completing this thoroughfare the Bombay Municipal Corporation is withholding the completion certificate for the building, they say. Thus the delay was not on account of the stays obtained by AZA from the Charity Commissioner’s (CC) office, they maintained. The BPP reportedly is opposed to the road as it cuts through the colony, dividing it.

As per the allegation that 20 vacant flats in the various colonies cannot be allotted to applicants on account of the CC’s stays, the trio asked for a list of such flats.

They also claimed that aside from alienating property, they had not sought any stay on the other functions of the BPP, like handing out doles, scholarships, medical disbursement, payment of salaries, etc which could all continue as usual.

They point out certain flats are given on a leave and license basis and others on tenancy: They allege the practice is "arbitrary” and decided by personal factors, not merit.

The AZA heads also denied they were "going for the jugular” of the BPP as alleged in the editorial. They felt they were left with no alternative except to take legal recourse on account of the adamancy of the BPP trustees. The AZA had moved the CC’s office to remove all the six trustees citing amongst other infractions the allegations the trustees have made against each other especially at the time of tendering their ill thought out resignations. Chairman Minoo Shroff, Dinshaw Tamboly, Maneck Engineer and Burjor Antia had submitted letters of resignation in June 2006 stating they had lost confidence in co-trustee Dinshaw Mehta and did not want to serve with him on the board. A preliminary hearing was held on January 11, 2008.

The AZA leaders too have been at loggerheads with Mehta. They stated that till Mehta agrees not to stand for reelection as a trustee, their battle against the BPP will continue. Mehta is determined he will not agree to any condition that impinges on his right to stand for office.

In the meanwhile a divisional bench of the Bombay High Court consisting of Dr S. Radhakrishnan and Anoop V. Mohta, following a two-and-a-half-day hearing on January 8, 9 and 10, will be passing judgment on whether the four remain trustees or not. Depending on that outcome, elections to the BPP by adult franchise will be held or annulled. A quorum of four is required for the trustees to function and without that number the proposal to approach the courts for electoral amendments would be null and void. Should the court rule in favor of the four, the BPP counsel Iqbal Chagla asked the election process be completed within four months from the date of the judgment.

The AZA chiefs also denied their litigation before the CC was in response to the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis’ (WAPIZ) case filed in the High Court. They further refuted the allegation that by asking Justice A. M. Khanwilkar to forward the date of the election, the BPP administration did not have enough time to prepare for the elections.

On April 5, 2007 the BPP asked Khanwilkar to schedule the elections by December 2007 but as there was much opposition from the interveners present he advanced the date to October with the proviso the BPP could approach the court for a two-month extension. In the meanwhile WAPIZ filed their petition appealing the judgment by Justice Roshan Dalvi stating the resignations were not submitted as per the requirements and that the four could continue as trustees. Thus until the appeal was heard by the divisional bench, the elections were stayed.

AZA contends the BPP deliberately delayed the process and that elections could have been held by October had the BPP moved in the matter. The BPP wanted some clarification from Khanwilkar on the amended scheme and the delay in approaching the court resulted in the October deadline being missed.

"Nobody wants to block a property (plan) that is worthwhile,” says Randeria. But also "no one wants to see property misused… It’s not a matter of proving a point,” he adds. Their motives for litigating are in the larger interests of the community.