“BPP allotment of flats”

In the full page announcement "Bombay Parsi Punchayet allotment of flats” (Parsiana, January 7, 2009) Mehli Colah, CEO (chief executive officer) of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) claims: "As per the mandate given by the community, the newly elected trustees of the BPP have started the process of reviewing all the 104 allotments done by the earlier trustees.”

Though I attended a few pre-election meetings and read pamphlets received from candidates as well as the Jam-e-Jamshed Weekly and Parsiana, to the best of my knowledge there was no mention of a review of allotments in any manifesto. It is difficult to accept Colah’s statement especially since Dinshaw Mehta, the present BPP chairman was a trustee on the previous board and is party to the said allotment. This so-called mandate appears to be an afterthought, to get even with the old board and undo what it has done. It also casts doubt on Mehta, creating the impression that he is under the scanner and his actions are under scrutiny.

In the elections, two out of four candidates from the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) won, one out of seven from the Adult Franchise for Progress (AFP) and the remaining four were independents. AFP was branded as reformist and the main agenda was orthodox vs reformist. Though housing was one of the items on the manifestos, there was nothing to the effect that the new board would review the actions of the previous board while allocating 104 flats. Hence the matter of "mandate” is a figment of the imagination.

Mehta’s manifesto mentioned, "The unanimous consent of all seven BPP trustees is required for all decisions relating to allotment of flats. Instead of squandering charity funds in litigation, all occupants of our various colonies, be they tenants or licensees, will be allowed to benefit from tenancies if they desire to vacate their premise(s), subject to the Trust getting a fair share of their transfer fees, as the law now allows this.” What I understand from this is that as long the Trust gets its pound of flesh, a tenant can induct of his own free will anyone in the flat, and to hell with the waiting list and merit rating. The community has given thumbs up to this, and this is the real mandate, and not any review.

Colah and the trustees must spell out clearly what mandate they have received. Is it a mandate to allot flats in baugs against acceptance of deposits from allottees? Will they allow a tenant to profit and induct anyone in his flat if he will part with some of the loot as the trustees’ share? The BPP should also inform the community through the Press what its housing policy is and what is considered as merit to qualify for allotment in the baugs in the interest of transparency.

Colah’s statement that the then trustees (who were highly qualified and included legal brains), under oral threat of removal/suspension given by the Joint Charity Commissioner (JtCC), from time to time succumbed to the threat and signed on the dotted line, must be taken with a pinch of salt. With all the money at their disposal they could have engaged the best legal brains and challenged any illegal, arbitrary, mala fide actions of anybody, leave alone a JtCC. That they did not make a whimper of protest shows that there is more than meets the eye. It is quite likely that the trustees were fully aware that they were caught on the wrong foot and hence agreed to what the JtCC proposed.

Why would they succumb to threats if their conscience and hands were clean? Why did fear grip them? Why did they not challenge the JtCC if they were honest and above board in their dealings? Trying to paint the JtCC black only exposes the mindset of the present BPP. That the present board has accepted 39 applicants from the previous list shows that the JtCC was on the right track, and that these applicants were sidelined by the BPP. The present trustees must explain to the community how not one, two, or 10, but 39 were overlooked, when they were duly eligible, for allotment.

Since 39 of the 104 have been accepted by the present board, presumably without any threat or intimidation of any sort, if mala fide is proved (which is out of the question) the present chairman, a signatory to the allotment, will have much explaining to do. So, in all probability, the review will be a flop. If a list of more deserving people is submitted, it will be open to question as to why these people were overlooked/discriminated in the past.

BEHRAM AGA

behram_r_aga@yahoo.co.in