Contempt charge stands

The Charity Commissioner (CC) M. K. Chaure has turned down an appeal by the trustees of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) not to proceed with a contempt notice against them.

In an order dated April 8, 2010 the CC noted, "The application for contempt of court is tenable against the respondent nos. 5 to 11 (the seven trustees of the BPP) in absence of respondent nos. 1 to 3 (State of Maharashtra, Hasan Mushriff, minister of state, law and judiciary and Prakash Joshi, desk officer to the department of law and judiciary) and it cannot be dismissed.”

In their appeal prepared by BPP advocates Percy Ghandy and Mangesh Chavan, the trustees had stated that they were "challenging the ex parte order dated October 12, 2009 passed by the CC in miscellaneous application no. 68 of 2009” filed by Percy Patel, one of the leaders of the Alert Zoroastrians Association (AZA). In that order the CC had "kept the point of tenability of the said application open as against respondent nos. 2 and 3 (while) directing notice to be issued to respondent nos. 5 to 11.”

The BPP claims that "the issue of tenability of the above application against respondent nos. 1 to 3 must be decided first before hearing the above application against respondent nos. 5 to 11. The respondents submit that in the absence of respondent nos. 1 to 3 (the application) is clearly not maintainable and ought to be dismissed with costs.”

The trustees contend that the contempt motion "is a composite charge alleging that (the trustees) had written a letter dated August 18, 2009 to (Mushriff) in relation to an administrative order of the CC dated July 13, 2009 by which he had ordered a special audit to be conducted of the books of accounts of respondent no. 4 (trust of the funds and properties of the Parsi Punchayet of Bombay) for a period of 11 years from 1998 onwards.”

The BPP noted that the CC had directed them to pay a special audit fee of Rs 1.2 crores and that the CC had "refused to give respondents nos. 4 to 11 a copy of the investigation report on the basis of which the said special audit had been ordered.”

The BPP then wrote to Mushriff on August 18, 2009. Joshi, on the instruction of the minister, wrote a letter dated September 9, 2009 to the CC requesting him to furnish "a report relating to the matter” to him.

Patel’s application alleged that the government officials and the trustees "in collusion with each other, got the letter dated September 9, 2009 issued.” He further alleged that the letter constituted "a serious interference and obstruction in the process of administration of justice and that therefore respondent nos. 2 to 11 had committed criminal contempt under section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”

The BPP argued "the main charge of interfering with the administration of justice has been leveled against respondent nos. 2 and 3 and not against respondent nos. 5 to 11.” They alleged that "they had merely made a representation to (Mushriff) in his supervisory capacity to look into a purely administrative function of the CC” and that "the CC is purely performing an administrative function and the state government is clearly entitled to act in a supervisory capacity in this regard.”

The BPP further argues that by proceeding against them and not against the state officials the CC’s action "would be clearly malafide and done with the intention of shielding respondent nos. 2 and 3 and the same would be clearly untenable in law.”

While dismissing the Punchayet’s appeal, Chaure also directed the contempt notice filed by Patel "to proceed further.”

The Punchayet can appeal the order in the Bombay High Court.