“Postponement in Poona”

I have read "Postponement in Poona” (Parsiana, February 7, 2010) about the Poona Parsi Panchayat (PPP) elections.

I have known Parsiana to be unbiased, impartial and balanced in its views and unlike other publications have never known it to be one-sided, influenced or subjective. However, since the entire episode revolves around three parties — Noshir Nanavatti, Eruch Irani and the trustees of the PPP — I fail to understand why the views of others, and in particular Coover Mehta, have also been published when it is amply clear that his standpoint is against the decisions of the PPP and in favor of the excluded candidates. You needed to take opinions from the public so that both sides of the coin are taken into account.

It also seems that you may not have received the opinion of Homa Petit who has categorically and emphatically stated, point by point, why the disqualified candidates cannot be trustees, which again was not mentioned in your article.

Mehta states: "The interim order passed... says that it is an infringement of civil rights of a person.” Standing for elections of a public trust is not a civil right. There is a Supreme Court ruling to this effect, which you may verify.

MABRIN N. NANAVATTI

Poona

mab_rin@hotmail.com

The editors reply

We attempted to present all the points of view received, including those of the PPP trustees and Noshir Nanavatti. The article has mentioned that legal opinions were sought from Homa D. Petit, Nadir A. Modi and Parag Erande for the PPP trustees to study before deciding on their course of action. Copies of these opinions were and are not available with Parsiana.