Dadrawala’s determination

Dissident Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trustee Noshir Dadrawala has filed an application with the Charity Commissioner under section (u/s) 41A "seeking various directions and reliefs in order to assert my legal and fundamental right to information as a duly elected trustee of the BPP.” The hearing is tentatively scheduled for January 21, 2010.

In response his six co-trustees "have recorded a vote of no confidence against me. I have of course treated this vote taken behind my back with the contempt that it deserves,” stated Dadrawala in an e-mail to Parsiana dated December 17, 2009 entitled "A Year as Trustee of the BPP — A Dream Turned Nightmare.”

The e-mail goes on to note "The BPP is not the Lok Sabha and their vote of no confidence is not even worth the paper on which it is written… this vote of no confidence is a counter blast to my said application u/s 41A and has been passed to be used as a defense in the said proceedings.”

Noshir Dadra­-wala "accoun-tability is a way of life”

Citing the provocation that instigated the suit Dadrawala explained, "As a sitting trustee, I had requested the BPP’s CEO (Chief Executive Officer Mehli Colah) way back in May 2009 for certain basic information to acquaint myself with the various issues at hand. This was refused not just by the CEO but the entire board of trustees and duly recorded in the minutes with other offending remarks with a view to hurt and humiliate me.

"After a few months, I repeated my request, failing which, I had cautioned that I would have to take legal action. To my amazement, the CEO, a paid employee of the trust, had the temerity to not just refuse the information, but, also added that he ‘would appreciate if you (Mr Dadrawala) refrain from sending legal threats to me.’ I immediately wrote to the CEO stating: ‘As requested by you, I will refrain from sending what you consider ‘legal threats’ and actually proceed as may be advised against the BPP board and the administration.’”

Noting that several of the successful candidates had promised to declare their assets while contesting the BPP trusteeship elections Dadrawala said, "Let me be the first (but hopefully not the last)” and proceeded to make public his assets. He stated he is a full-time chief executive of the Centre for Advancement of Philanthropy with a fixed monthly salary.

"I reside with my wife, son and a Labrador in a one bedroom kitchen ownership flat (in a cosmopolitan society) purchased by my late father in the early seventies out of his entire life-savings. I do not own any other immovable property nor do I have any investments in shares and stocks. I travel to work in a car owned by my company.”

Regarding the BPP Review Dadrawala stated in his e-mail of December 23 that he was "surprised” to find his name as a member of the editorial board and asked for his name to be deleted. "For the record, I have not been privy to the contents of this magazine before it went to the press,” he noted.

Regarding the originating summons in the Bombay High Court pertaining to the ban on two priests from performing religious ceremonies at Doongerwadi and two agiaries, Dadrawala explained in his e-mail of November 13, 2009 that while he held "no brief for Ervad Khushroo Madon and Ervad Framroze Mirza,” he had cautioned his co-trustees on the legal ramifications.

"Legally, can the trustees of the BPP prevent an ordained Parsi Zoroastrian priest (renegade or otherwise) from praying for the soul of a deceased Parsi Zoroastrian whose body is to be consigned to the dakhma?

"Will the BPP’s argument that they are being ostracized because in private life these two mobeds perform marriage ceremonies for inter-married couples, etc hold well in a court of law?

"There are many other such ‘renegade’ priests, so why target just two of them? Legally, would this not tantamount to discrimination or inequity?

"I had also recommended that the BPP which is primarily a ‘charitable institution’ should seek written opinion of at least two senior legal counsels before issuing this ‘Religious Diktat.’”

Dadrawala’s November 13 e-mail appeared in the Jam-e-Jamshed Weekly of November 20, 2009 prompting the BPP’s solicitors, KRY Legal, to address a letter dated November 24, 2009 to the board of trustees stating, "It is a matter of grave concern that a sitting trustee of the BPP, in blatant disregard of decorum and in violation of the code of confidentiality, went public with the discussions which had taken place in the meetings of the board with regard to this issue. Even assuming that Mr Dadrawala had reservations on the issue of whether the BPP was legally empowered to pass such a resolution, his having voted in favor of passing such a resolution, albeit ‘in the spirit of solidarity,’ it did not behove him to voice his reservations in public.”

In response to the KRY Legal letter Dadrawala replied, "I categorically deny that I ‘went public with the discussions which had taken place in the meetings of the board with regard to this issue.’ All I have done is express my own views with regard to this issue. For me, ‘transparency’ and ‘accountability’ are not an ‘election promise/gimmick’ but a way of life.”