Submit a synopsis

Whether Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trustee Noshir Dadrawala is entitled to access the minutes and records of the apex body that are being denied to him by his co-trustees will be decided by the Assistant Charity Commissioner (ACC) A. E. Shingne soon after the advocates on both the sides submit a written synopsis of their salient arguments on October 11, 2010. The hearings having concluded on September 23, Shingne wanted to ensure, "When passing the order I should not be under any confusion.”

Whilst deciding on the date for submission, counsel Percy Ghandy who is defending the six BPP trustees sought three weeks’ time which made Shingne comment, "You will forget by then.” Responded Ghandy, "I have already forgotten.” At this last hearing Dadrawala’s advocate Sagheer Khan was given an opportunity to recapitulate the salient points of the arguments. But the rejoinder that was "meant to be brief lasted for over an hour,” reminded Ghandy.

BPP trustee Dadrawala is "co-owner of the records and property of the trust,” asserted Khan, and it is his "statutory right” to seek relief from the appropriate authority under section 41A of the Bombay Public Trust Act (BPTA). Dadrawala was primarily seeking detailed information with regard to the 64 housing applicants whose allotments were approved, the 40 applicants who were denied allotments despite being approved by the earlier board of trustees, a list of flats lying vacant with the Punchayet and the reasons for their non-occupation, a list of allotments made since December 2006 whether on the basis of merit rating or auction, the amounts collected by way of security deposits, the responses received by the trustees following newspaper advertisements inviting objections to prospective allotments, construction of future flats, project costs and means of finance, legal expenses borne by the current set of trustees.

For opposing the trustees’ writ petition in the High Court in the matter of 104 allotments, Dadrawala was made a respondent as it was feared that he would "pass on information” to those opposing the BPP moves. Are they implying in Parliament "all opposition members should be thrown in the sea?” enquired Khan. A resolution passed by the six trustees stating their reasons for withholding information from Dadra­wala had been cited as evidence before the ACC. Countered Khan, "Can I not ask for information about meetings to which I am a party? What is the problem in giving information? If there is nothing to hide why are they scared of sharing information?”

Interjected Ghandy, "He is rearguing. He was supposed to sum up.” Shingne however did not respond and Khan wondered why "the threat of legal action was being perceived as a threat to life.” Maintaining that his client has the right to fight under section 41A, Khan stated if there is "obvious conflict of interest” as purported by the six trustees "they should have taken recourse to section 41D which they did not.” Since Ghandy had earlier argued that the present matter is "not quasi judicial” and hence the Charity Commissioner (CC) has no jurisdiction over it, Khan clarified that only if his client were to allege that the minutes are not correctly recorded would it classify as a judicial dispute. In the present case he is only seeking access to minutes. "Denial of information is against the principle of good governance,” stressed Khan.

Copies of all minutes are e-mailed to your client, insisted Ghandy. After the new trustees assumed office in October 2008, 90 odd trustees’ meetings have been held, stated Ghandy, adding, "One third of the meetings your client has not even attended.” When Shingne sought a clarification Ghandy declared that the minutes of the present board are being given to Dadrawala but not of the earlier board of trustees for which "I’m not responsible.”

Ghandy had also observed that with the change report (that every trust is obliged to file with the CC after an election) being challenged by the BPP adversaries, the present trustees are not bound to respond to Dadrawala’s complaint. But as pointed out Khan, "You are trustee from the date of appointment, not from the date of acceptance.” If a change report is not accepted can a trustee siphon off funds and then say he was not confirmed as a trustee?

Khan’s final submission was "All information I am seeking is in respect of the property of the trust of which I am a trustee.”

At the earlier hearing on September 4, Ghandy had argued before Shingne that Dadrawala’s allegations against his fellow trustees were in the words of former Supreme Court Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer "blissfully vague.” Citing specific paragraphs from the plaint the lawyer countered that the BPP was maintaining all the records and accounts as statutorily required. "He (Dadrawala) can’t come to the Charity Commissioner and say we are not maintaining the records without some evidence.” He alleged that Dadrawala had not written a single letter asking for the records/accounts nor "has he ever called upon us… What record have we not given him?” He noted the trust’s auditors are the reputed firm of Kalyaniwalla and Mistry and that the trustees "cannot tell them what to do.” The accounts are filed before the CC’s office.

"These are frivolous allegations. In the face of that can such vague allegations stand? The answer is no.” He alleged Dadrawala is "not acting for the betterment of the community at large.” As for the accusation that the trustees were building a multi-storied building for selling flats on an ownership basis at Godrej Baug without the CC’s consent, Ghandy stated that the CC’s permission was not required to build, "only to sell.” Accordingly the BPP’s solicitors, Mulla and Mulla "have today filed for 36 (i) application for permission to sell. I will give copies of the application later.”

Khan: "Give it right now or don’t rely on it.” Counsel Vaibhav Nagvekar who also represents Dadrawala alleged that despite repeated requests for documents produced before the CC’s office by Ghandy, copies were not provided to the complainant. Ghandy denied the allegations.

The BPP counsel argued that Dadrawala had "arraigned” himself with the opponents of the trust instead of supporting the majority viewpoint. "Clause 32 (of the BPTA) enjoins on him to follow the decision of the majority. This is clearly a breach of trust. He should be grateful we are not taking action against him.”

"If six trustees say ‘ABCD’ you cannot say ‘XYZ’ even if it is ‘XYZ?’” questioned Khan. "If six trustees indulge in malfeasance the CC has the power to correct them. That is why it is called the Bombay Public Trust Act and not the Bombay Private Trust Act.” He denied there was any "vagueness” in Dadrawala’s allegations and asserted his rights to raise issues before the CC. "I (the complainant) am a co-trustee, a co-owner of the property… I have a statutory right to approach the tribunal. My dispute may be bonafide.”

Ghandy: "You have to follow the majority.” Khan objected to Ghandy’s interjection.

Ghandy: "I’m giving you a taste of your own medicine” referring to Khan’s earlier verbal sniping.

Khan: "Unfortunately I am fasting. I can’t taste.” (The month of Ramzan was in progress.)

The rotund Ghandy: "My learned friend is fasting. I cannot… Parsis never believe in keeping the stomach empty.”

Shingne: "The philosophy of Gautama Buddha reflects on the utility of lecturing to people who have empty stomachs (perhaps an indication that the CC’s office lunch time was approaching).”

Khan: "Who says I have to follow the majority?”

Shingne: "What does it mean ‘bound by majority?’ Do they (minority trustees) have to follow it blindly?”

Khan: "Can I not ask which flats are vacant and which are not?”

Ghandy: "All the information has been provided in the affidavit” submitted to the Bombay High Court in the dispute. "It is not for this (CC) court to decide whether it is complete” or not. "Seventy-seven flats are available under the merit rating scheme. If Dadrawala has any grievance he should plead before the High Court… You are making a mountain out of a molehill.”