Editorial Viewpoint
Drawing the battle lines
Barely into the third month of office the new Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) board of trustees has taken on several major challenges. The first is the attempt to review the 104 flats allotted by the previous trustees under pressure from the Alert Zoroastrians Association (AZA) under the direction of the Charity Commissioner.
The second is the hosting of the annual general meeting of the Federation of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India (FPZAI), overdue by two years. Here the tussle is for the posts of vice president West Zone B and the joint honorary sec-retary. Ahmedabad Parsi Pancha-yat’s (APP) past president and current Federation Vice President Areez Khambatta is determined to seek a second term while the current APP board is opposed to his continuation.
One of the current joint honorary secretaries is Delhi’s Keki Gandhi who is anathema to the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) organization.
On housing the BPP is divided with six trustees appealing the Charity Commissioner’s allotment decision and Noshir Dadrawala, the Adult Franchise for Progress (AFP) candi-date backed by the AZA abstaining on grounds of conscience.
A compromise meet called bet-ween five of the trustees and AZA leader Kersi Randeria at the office of BPP trustee Jimmy Mistry at 11 p.m., following a social function, ended in a stalemate at 2.30 a.m. A combative BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta reportedly refused to shake hands with his long time rival and bete noire Randeria who proffered his hand. Dismissing a plea by others to let bygones be bygones, Mehta reportedly retorted, “he’s harassed me enough.”
Mehta and his co-trustees Kho-jeste Mistree and Yazdi Desai of WAPIZ allege the flat allotments were made after the announcement of the BPP trusteeship elections and were done with an eye to curry favor with voters.
A press release issued by BPP chief executive officer Mehli Colah and e-mailed to Parsiana on December 23, 2008 states “it is necessary to point out that there are only 75 flats available for allotment as against which the then trustees have allotted 104 applicants.
“As all of us are aware that the then Trustees (under oral threat of removal/suspension given by the Jt. Charity Commissioner from time to time) had approved for allotment most of the cases of applicants as per the direction of the Jt. Charity Commi-ssioner. Whilst some were deserving, many out of turn applicants whose ranking in the Merit Rating Scheme was way below the other applicants were also approved under this oral threat, which even some of the present trustees have experienced from the Jt. Charity Commissioner. Since approval of out of turn applicants was to the detriment of more deserving cases with higher merit points whose only fault was that they did not go to complain to the Jt. Charity Commissioner, the newly elected trustees have decided to review all the 104 allotments done by the retiring trustees on the eve of the election and even whilst the election process was on.”
Of the 104 allotments the present board of trustees has cleared 39 as “being eligible.” The other allotments are to be reviewed.
The fortnightly WAPIZ Page in the Free Press Journal of December 26, 2008 states, “a cursory scrutiny of these 104 applicants highlights cases of gross out of turn allotments to the detriment of higher merit points and higher ranking applicants whose only fault was that they did not approach AZA for their allotment… We call upon Mr Randeria and Mr (Percy) Patel to lay off their evil machinations and let the BPP board function in peace in the interest of our community.”
But in his weekly The Bombay Samachar column AFP founder and noted lawyer Berjis Desai cautions “There is a strong legal case for the proposition that an allotment letter (even though not followed up by possession of the house being given) is a contract of which specific performance can be sought… It can also be contended that canceling allotment of a home, without even an opportunity of a hearing, is arbitrary and illegal and in breach of natural justice…
“The Charity Commissioner hearing this matter is fairly determined to ensure that these 104 allottees are not deprived of their flats. He has directed that ‘no decisions on fresh allotments shall be made till the claims of these 104 allottees are cleared by the trustees’…
“Even if the most deserving of these 104 allottees are given pos-session of their homes and others dealt with in a just manner, a com-promise can still be thrashed out.”
While old animosities weaken the resolve to give and take on the housing front, efforts on finding a face saving solution on the Federation may also hit a stone wall.
A quid pro quo solution whereby Khambatta keeps his seat in exchange for letting Gandhi continue in office does not appear acceptable.
It is unlikely after the public exchanges and name calling between Khambatta and the present APP president Kersi Shethna, the APP would acquiesce to Khambatta’s continuation in an office that traditionally should go to the APP or Surat Parsi Panchayat head.
If a contest takes place for both posts, the battle lines will be drawn between Mehta and his WAPIZ allies on one side and Gandhi and the APP on the other. It may also result in small anjumans with negligible numbers ironically outvoting the larger associations with thousands of members. In the Federation’s general body each anjuman has one vote.
While all this may be business as usual, it gives an indication to the direction a feisty Mehta may be unknowingly giving the august body.
Already he is labeling the BPP “the apex body of the Parsis in the world,” a sentiment originated by his co-trustee Rustom Tirandaz, and one certain to annoy other community bodies who consider themselves autonomous and beholden to no one. And Mehta has also condemned a Parsi lawyer willing to defend the lone surviving terrorist of the Bombay November attacks.
In his interview with Parsiana (“The mandate is clear,” November 21, 2008), Mehta claimed that the new board “will be traditional but we will not be like the Taliban.” By denying an accused the basic constitutional right to legal defence, he is borrowing a leaf from the very group whose philosophy he discredits.
The second is the hosting of the annual general meeting of the Federation of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India (FPZAI), overdue by two years. Here the tussle is for the posts of vice president West Zone B and the joint honorary sec-retary. Ahmedabad Parsi Pancha-yat’s (APP) past president and current Federation Vice President Areez Khambatta is determined to seek a second term while the current APP board is opposed to his continuation.
One of the current joint honorary secretaries is Delhi’s Keki Gandhi who is anathema to the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) organization.
On housing the BPP is divided with six trustees appealing the Charity Commissioner’s allotment decision and Noshir Dadrawala, the Adult Franchise for Progress (AFP) candi-date backed by the AZA abstaining on grounds of conscience.
A compromise meet called bet-ween five of the trustees and AZA leader Kersi Randeria at the office of BPP trustee Jimmy Mistry at 11 p.m., following a social function, ended in a stalemate at 2.30 a.m. A combative BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta reportedly refused to shake hands with his long time rival and bete noire Randeria who proffered his hand. Dismissing a plea by others to let bygones be bygones, Mehta reportedly retorted, “he’s harassed me enough.”
Mehta and his co-trustees Kho-jeste Mistree and Yazdi Desai of WAPIZ allege the flat allotments were made after the announcement of the BPP trusteeship elections and were done with an eye to curry favor with voters.
A press release issued by BPP chief executive officer Mehli Colah and e-mailed to Parsiana on December 23, 2008 states “it is necessary to point out that there are only 75 flats available for allotment as against which the then trustees have allotted 104 applicants.
“As all of us are aware that the then Trustees (under oral threat of removal/suspension given by the Jt. Charity Commissioner from time to time) had approved for allotment most of the cases of applicants as per the direction of the Jt. Charity Commi-ssioner. Whilst some were deserving, many out of turn applicants whose ranking in the Merit Rating Scheme was way below the other applicants were also approved under this oral threat, which even some of the present trustees have experienced from the Jt. Charity Commissioner. Since approval of out of turn applicants was to the detriment of more deserving cases with higher merit points whose only fault was that they did not go to complain to the Jt. Charity Commissioner, the newly elected trustees have decided to review all the 104 allotments done by the retiring trustees on the eve of the election and even whilst the election process was on.”
Of the 104 allotments the present board of trustees has cleared 39 as “being eligible.” The other allotments are to be reviewed.
The fortnightly WAPIZ Page in the Free Press Journal of December 26, 2008 states, “a cursory scrutiny of these 104 applicants highlights cases of gross out of turn allotments to the detriment of higher merit points and higher ranking applicants whose only fault was that they did not approach AZA for their allotment… We call upon Mr Randeria and Mr (Percy) Patel to lay off their evil machinations and let the BPP board function in peace in the interest of our community.”
But in his weekly The Bombay Samachar column AFP founder and noted lawyer Berjis Desai cautions “There is a strong legal case for the proposition that an allotment letter (even though not followed up by possession of the house being given) is a contract of which specific performance can be sought… It can also be contended that canceling allotment of a home, without even an opportunity of a hearing, is arbitrary and illegal and in breach of natural justice…
“The Charity Commissioner hearing this matter is fairly determined to ensure that these 104 allottees are not deprived of their flats. He has directed that ‘no decisions on fresh allotments shall be made till the claims of these 104 allottees are cleared by the trustees’…
“Even if the most deserving of these 104 allottees are given pos-session of their homes and others dealt with in a just manner, a com-promise can still be thrashed out.”
While old animosities weaken the resolve to give and take on the housing front, efforts on finding a face saving solution on the Federation may also hit a stone wall.
A quid pro quo solution whereby Khambatta keeps his seat in exchange for letting Gandhi continue in office does not appear acceptable.
It is unlikely after the public exchanges and name calling between Khambatta and the present APP president Kersi Shethna, the APP would acquiesce to Khambatta’s continuation in an office that traditionally should go to the APP or Surat Parsi Panchayat head.
If a contest takes place for both posts, the battle lines will be drawn between Mehta and his WAPIZ allies on one side and Gandhi and the APP on the other. It may also result in small anjumans with negligible numbers ironically outvoting the larger associations with thousands of members. In the Federation’s general body each anjuman has one vote.
While all this may be business as usual, it gives an indication to the direction a feisty Mehta may be unknowingly giving the august body.
Already he is labeling the BPP “the apex body of the Parsis in the world,” a sentiment originated by his co-trustee Rustom Tirandaz, and one certain to annoy other community bodies who consider themselves autonomous and beholden to no one. And Mehta has also condemned a Parsi lawyer willing to defend the lone surviving terrorist of the Bombay November attacks.
In his interview with Parsiana (“The mandate is clear,” November 21, 2008), Mehta claimed that the new board “will be traditional but we will not be like the Taliban.” By denying an accused the basic constitutional right to legal defence, he is borrowing a leaf from the very group whose philosophy he discredits.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive