Editorial Viewpoint
Who lost?
The WAPIZ (World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis) Page of October 17, 2009 published a morphed photograph of Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) chairman Dinshaw Mehta in boxer shorts beaming joyously after having dealt a knockout blow to his arch rival, Alert Zoroastrians Association (AZA) leader Kersi Randeria. “Resounding victory for BPP in High Court. BPP wins both cases,” stated the banner headline.
The sporting analogy may have been apt except that there were no real winners to the year long courtroom slugfest between the BPP and its nemesis, AZA. Caught in the middle were the community members in need of housing or an exchange of flats. For the 104 applicants at the heart of the row, the wait and anxiety will continue at least another six weeks after the court appointed one man committee of former Supreme Court judge B. N. Srikrishna begins its hearing.
“The learned Committee shall examine whether the allotments are made in accordance with the (BPP’s) Merit Rating System (MRS),” ruled Bombay High Court Justices D. K. Deshmukh and R. G. Ketkar. The contesting parties had agreed that 65 of the 104 applicants were deserving. What was at issue was the remaining 39. The AZA argued that all 104 should be allotted the flats as many of them had petitioned the Charity Commissioner’s (CC) office and relief should be granted to those who approach the bench.
The BPP, mainly Mehta who also served on the previous board and is at loggerheads with the AZA along with co-trustees Khojeste Mistree, Yazdi Desai and the late Rustom Tirandaz countered that there were more deserving applicants on the BPP’s waiting list of around 1,000 applicants as per the MRS criteria. According to the consent terms filed in court between the warring parties, a third party will decide the chosen people and his decision will be binding. The committee “will also inquire into the aspect of availability of the flats for allotment under the MRS,” specified the order.
The judges also stayed the CC’s orders that were detrimental to the BPP and “vacated” all interim orders passed by the CC in the case.
As regards the matter of selling ownership flats at Panthaky Baug in Andheri, the judges ruled the trustees “shall be free to dispose of the remaining flats…on ownership basis to poor, needy and deserving Parsis (with) priority being given to poor Parsis.”
The WAPIZ Page heralded this as a victory for Mehta especially as he has consistently championed the concept of selling flats on ownership basis. The money so garnered was to be diverted to build housing on leave and license basis for the weaker sections of the community.
It was the AZA contention that the BPP always promised to cross subsidize housing but never did so. The money earned from ownership flats was ploughed into other channels, not housing for the poor. “It was all talk and nothing else…vague promises, loose talk and pipe dreams…ownership houses at Spenta, Aderbad, Shahnazeen and Panthaky Baug and no concrete proposals for the poor — that is what cross subsidy meant then!” AZA alleged in the Jam-e-Jamshed Weekly of October 10, 2009.
Now the AZA claims they have won a victory as the justices required “the trustees to file an undertaking in this court within a period of two weeks from today that on the same property i.e. Panthaky Baug, buildings will be constructed having at least 300 flats within a period of two years from today which will be allotted under Merit Rating Scheme of the trust, immediately on the flats being ready for occupation…
“The trustees shall be at liberty to apply for extension of time, if at the end of the period of two years they find that it is not possible to comply with the time limit for a reason beyond their control. It is made clear that application for extension of time shall not be entertained unless substantial progress is made in the matter of construction of buildings.” The initial paperwork alone may take up to a year.
Thus the trustees are now legally bound to build for the disadvantaged. Mehta and his co-trustees contend this has always been their intention to so build and that the AZA was falsely claiming credit.
“In 1972-75 the BPP using the cross subsidy method sold ownership flats in five buildings and from the moneys so generated constructed seven buildings for the poor,” stated the WAPIZ Page without citing any names or places.
“The BPP in their written statement to the CC way back in 2004 as well as in the High Court in February 2009 has committed to building 300 to 400 flats for the poor in Panthaky Baug from the moneys generated through the sale of ownership flats,” the WAPIZ Page added.
In the courtroom, according to reports (Parsiana missed the final hearing as we were not aware of the date, the case having being adjourned several times and the matter moving to a new bench) the BPP lawyers argued that the price of the ownership flats be increased as the rate of Rs 2,400 a square foot had been decided five years ago. The sale of flats would garner around Rs 14 crores while the cost of constructing 300 to 400 new flats would be more than twice or thrice that amount.
With the current ownership prices in Andheri reportedly being over Rs 10,000 a square foot, the BPP is expecting more than 300 applicants for around 70 or so flats. How will they decide who is the most deserving? And which person shelling out around Rs 18 to 22 lakh rupees (estimated price according to BPP chief executive officer Mehli Colah) and a monthly outgoing of around Rs 3,500 to Rs 4,000 is “poor, needy and deserving?”
The High Court order has brought finality to a vexing and long drawn issue but in its wake has raised several new and equally troublesome concerns.
The sporting analogy may have been apt except that there were no real winners to the year long courtroom slugfest between the BPP and its nemesis, AZA. Caught in the middle were the community members in need of housing or an exchange of flats. For the 104 applicants at the heart of the row, the wait and anxiety will continue at least another six weeks after the court appointed one man committee of former Supreme Court judge B. N. Srikrishna begins its hearing.
“The learned Committee shall examine whether the allotments are made in accordance with the (BPP’s) Merit Rating System (MRS),” ruled Bombay High Court Justices D. K. Deshmukh and R. G. Ketkar. The contesting parties had agreed that 65 of the 104 applicants were deserving. What was at issue was the remaining 39. The AZA argued that all 104 should be allotted the flats as many of them had petitioned the Charity Commissioner’s (CC) office and relief should be granted to those who approach the bench.
The BPP, mainly Mehta who also served on the previous board and is at loggerheads with the AZA along with co-trustees Khojeste Mistree, Yazdi Desai and the late Rustom Tirandaz countered that there were more deserving applicants on the BPP’s waiting list of around 1,000 applicants as per the MRS criteria. According to the consent terms filed in court between the warring parties, a third party will decide the chosen people and his decision will be binding. The committee “will also inquire into the aspect of availability of the flats for allotment under the MRS,” specified the order.
The judges also stayed the CC’s orders that were detrimental to the BPP and “vacated” all interim orders passed by the CC in the case.
As regards the matter of selling ownership flats at Panthaky Baug in Andheri, the judges ruled the trustees “shall be free to dispose of the remaining flats…on ownership basis to poor, needy and deserving Parsis (with) priority being given to poor Parsis.”
The WAPIZ Page heralded this as a victory for Mehta especially as he has consistently championed the concept of selling flats on ownership basis. The money so garnered was to be diverted to build housing on leave and license basis for the weaker sections of the community.
It was the AZA contention that the BPP always promised to cross subsidize housing but never did so. The money earned from ownership flats was ploughed into other channels, not housing for the poor. “It was all talk and nothing else…vague promises, loose talk and pipe dreams…ownership houses at Spenta, Aderbad, Shahnazeen and Panthaky Baug and no concrete proposals for the poor — that is what cross subsidy meant then!” AZA alleged in the Jam-e-Jamshed Weekly of October 10, 2009.
Now the AZA claims they have won a victory as the justices required “the trustees to file an undertaking in this court within a period of two weeks from today that on the same property i.e. Panthaky Baug, buildings will be constructed having at least 300 flats within a period of two years from today which will be allotted under Merit Rating Scheme of the trust, immediately on the flats being ready for occupation…
“The trustees shall be at liberty to apply for extension of time, if at the end of the period of two years they find that it is not possible to comply with the time limit for a reason beyond their control. It is made clear that application for extension of time shall not be entertained unless substantial progress is made in the matter of construction of buildings.” The initial paperwork alone may take up to a year.
Thus the trustees are now legally bound to build for the disadvantaged. Mehta and his co-trustees contend this has always been their intention to so build and that the AZA was falsely claiming credit.
“In 1972-75 the BPP using the cross subsidy method sold ownership flats in five buildings and from the moneys so generated constructed seven buildings for the poor,” stated the WAPIZ Page without citing any names or places.
“The BPP in their written statement to the CC way back in 2004 as well as in the High Court in February 2009 has committed to building 300 to 400 flats for the poor in Panthaky Baug from the moneys generated through the sale of ownership flats,” the WAPIZ Page added.
In the courtroom, according to reports (Parsiana missed the final hearing as we were not aware of the date, the case having being adjourned several times and the matter moving to a new bench) the BPP lawyers argued that the price of the ownership flats be increased as the rate of Rs 2,400 a square foot had been decided five years ago. The sale of flats would garner around Rs 14 crores while the cost of constructing 300 to 400 new flats would be more than twice or thrice that amount.
With the current ownership prices in Andheri reportedly being over Rs 10,000 a square foot, the BPP is expecting more than 300 applicants for around 70 or so flats. How will they decide who is the most deserving? And which person shelling out around Rs 18 to 22 lakh rupees (estimated price according to BPP chief executive officer Mehli Colah) and a monthly outgoing of around Rs 3,500 to Rs 4,000 is “poor, needy and deserving?”
The High Court order has brought finality to a vexing and long drawn issue but in its wake has raised several new and equally troublesome concerns.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive