“Problems in Poona III”

In the article "Problems in Poona III” (Parsiana, May 7, 2009) regarding the proposed Aspandiar Baug (Survey 603, south side), the five trustees of the Poona Parsi Panchayat (PPP) have stated that the "difference between the price of each flat and the actual cost of construction” would have enabled the PPP to fulfill the objects of the trust — to build an old people’s home, agiary, library, etc. As stated elsewhere in the same article, the scheme to let out flats at cost was unanimously approved at the 46th annual general meeting. Hence the question of the difference in price of each flat and the actual cost of construction does not arise.

I quote from my 41D application submitted on April 3, 2006 before Joint Charity Commissioner (JtCC) S. Y. Padhye: "In the second half of 2005, the trust has put up a proposal for construction of flats, Aspandiar Baug, once again on other ancestral land, and was quoting a rate of Rs 999 per sq ft… It has been felt that excess cost of construction would be Rs 300 per sq ft [Rs 999 less (Rs 600 plus Rs 99 for future increase)]. For a proposed built up area of over 1,81,000 sq ft, the total excess cost is over Rs 5.50 crore.”

In their written statement of August 7, 2006 signed by six PPP trustees and submitted to Padhye it is stated:

"n). As regards para (9) the submission of the applicant that excess cost of construction would be Rs 300 per sq ft is not true and correct as alleged or tried to be put forth and hence, not admitted by these opponents. Similarly, for proposed built up area of over 1,81,000 sq ft. The total excess cost of over Rs 5.50 crore is not true and correct as alleged or tried to be put forth, and hence, not admitted by these opponents.

"o). The allegations made by the applicant are meaningless. It is submitted that the trustees have to maintain foresight and vision. There is no doubt that the cost of Rs 999 is on a higher side keeping in mind the increasing price of steel. The opponents have also to consider the cost of construction of the structures, balconies, common passages, gardens, amenities, elevators, garages, etc. Therefore all the presumptions and assumptions of the applicant are baseless and meaningless. It seems he has no knowledge of construction activity at all and has been misguided.

"p). The opponents submit that they have obtained a report from architect/engineer I. Chaney and Associates, Architects, Planners and Interior Designers regarding cost of construction. The report consists of all the pros and cons of the property of the trust. Moreover, resolutions were passed from time to time whereby Rs 999 was decided as the cost of construction as luxurious facilities are provided.”

RUSTOM P. GINWALLA

Poona