Est. 1964 · Mumbai1964 – 2025 · every issue, digitised
Parsiana
The global Zoroastrian link medium
Events & Personalities

Flat standstill

No steps are to be taken by any party in the allotment of Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) flats, stated the Bombay High Court divisional bench of Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar and Dr Dhananjaya Chandrachud on March 24, 2009. The justices also warned the parties not to talk to the Press and cautioned the media against commenting on the two cases.
When the justices inquired regarding their recommendation that a retired Supreme Court judge be appointed to scrutinize all the housing applicants and set norms for future allotments, the counsel for the 40 out of the 104 allottees not cleared by the BPP, Iqbal Chagla, told the court, "No one talked to us. No further steps” have been taken in the matter. Instead the trustees "have gone ahead with actual allotments.”
He contended that BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta had said the trust would proceed with the 60 or so allottees meeting the merit rating scheme requirements while the retired Supreme Court judge could decide the rest. Chagla quoted from several newspapers which carried comments from Mehta stating the BPP was victorious as well as from editorial commentators in the Afternoon Despatch and Courier and the WAPIZ (World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthosh­tis) Page in The Free Press Journal hailing the court decisions and supporting the trustees.
"The newspapers should not be commenting like this,” argued Chagla. He noted, "paid advertisements after advertisements” had been carried in the newspapers stating the names of the people allotted flats "despite your lordships’ orders not to proceed.”
Chagla questioned the right of the present trustees to review decisions made by the previous board. "Detailed letters of allotment were issued” by the previous trustees to the 104 allottees, mentioning allotment number, flat number, etc, he observed.
The allotments had been made by the earlier trustees and agreed to by the Joint Charity Commissioner (JtCC) N. V. Deshmukh. Deshmukh gave the new trustees time to review the allotments if they wished but when he believed the trustees were dragging their feet in the matter, he ordered them to implement his decision by March 2, 2009. On March 5 the trustees filed an appeal against the JtCC’s order in the Bombay High Court.
The BPP trustees "can’t go on prevaricating… it’s all politics,” averred Chagla. "The Bombay Parsi Punchayet should be run as a public charitable trust.” He termed the trustees "undeserving of any relief from your lordships’ court.”
Counsel for the BPP Rafiq Dada countered his clients had "not made any allotments after the court order.” He contended that only 74 flats were available but 104 people had been allotted homes. Under the merit rating system 64 applicants were found to fit the criteria and from the remaining 40, only 10 could be allotted homes. The total list of applicants was 900. "As it stands other more deserving (families) are not getting” houses, he argued.
Chandrachud: "How can there be differences in the total number of flats?”
Kumar inquired if there was any "permanent employee” of the BPP who was employed under the old and new board whom the court could question on the issue.
Chagla: "Mehli Colah, the chief executive officer. He is the common denominator.”
Advocate Navroz Seervai stated he represented dissenting trustee Noshir Dadrawala and requested the court to distinguish between his client and the other five "petitioning trustees,” namely Mehta, Arnavaz Mistry, Jimmy Mistry, Khojeste Mistree and Yazdi Desai. Seervai claimed "nothing is told” to his client regarding the matters before the court and that Dadrawala was in favor of allotting all the 104 flats as per the JtCC’s orders.
The next hearing for "final arguments” has been scheduled for the afternoon of April 20, 2009. The judges would then rule on the 104 allotments order by the JtCC and whether the BPP can sell flats on ownership at Panthaky Baug in Andheri. The JtCC D. S. Purohit had stated the previous BPP trustees had fraudulently obtained permission to sell the flats and had revoked the sanction for sale of flats not already sold.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive