Dadrawala’s victory

The board of trustees of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) are "legally… bound to supply the copies of the minutes to the applicant trustee (Noshir Dad-rawala). If the resolution and the minutes are properly recorded as per the byelaws then there is no question of misuse by the applicant, as alleged. On the contrary, the said refusal on the part of the opponents is totally unfair particularly when it is asked by… a trustee and there is no proceeding filed for any misconduct against him… By making only allegations that he will misuse (the information) without any foundation, is not sufficient.” So ruled the assistant charity commissioner (ACC) A. H. Shingne by his order dated October 15, 2010 in the case filed by Dadrawala against his six co-trustees earlier this year.

Dadrawala’s complaint was that he was denied the minutes of the meeting pertaining to allotment of flats. "It is pertinent to note that it is not in dispute that the applicant is a legally elected trustee and the records and the properties vest in him along with the other trustees including the opponents,” noted Shingne. "It is also not in dispute that the applicant is in a minority and the opponents are (the managers) of the trust. But so far as the rights and duties are concerned, this authority cannot make any difference (between) them. Every trustee has (a) right to attend the meeting of the board of the trustees and participate as per the rules and regulations. The very purpose of maintaining the minutes book is to show how the discussion in the meeting took place and thereafter only the resolutions (are) passed. No doubt at all the resolutions passed in the meeting (are) binding on all the trustees. But the whole idea behind recording the minutes is to see at any time how the discussion took place and (should) be made available at least to all the trustees. Transparency and fairness (are) the soul of administration of the trust. Under (any) circumstances, it cannot be waived.

Noshir Dadrawala: entitled to trust records

"(With) this background, the refusal on the part of the opponents to give inspection of the minutes of the meetings, or to furnish the copies of the same to any trustee cannot be accepted under any circumstances. In my opinion either the board of trustees have passed the resolution which is not consistent with the rules and regulations and objects of the trust or only because the applicant opposed the resolution, they are making this a prestige issue. Otherwise, the public trust is to be administered as per the rules and regulations consistent with the aims and objects of the trust. Viewed from any angle, the justification given by the opponents is unacceptable. It is not made clear by the opponents as to why there should not be any transparency in the administration of the trust.”

The ACC noted that Dadrawala’s lawyer Sagheer Khan had argued that the directions sought from the charity commissioner’s (CC) office "are purely administrative in nature and closely related to the affairs of the trust.” He further argued "that there cannot be any assumption that the information may be used against the trust… mainly because the minutes and the resolutions are to be passed and recorded within the four corners of the rules and regulations of the trust.”

Regarding the repeal of the resolution denying Dadrawala access to the papers, minutes, etc, BPP counsel Percy Ghandy argued, "It is (a) well settled position of the law under section 41A of the (Bombay Public Trusts) Act, the legal rights of the contesting parties cannot be decided and this authority is only empowered to issue administrative directions.”

The ACC concurred noting, "In view of this legal position, it is pertinent to note that the prayer made by the applicant that the resolution passed by the trustees dated May 19, 2009 to be declared null and void, cannot be the subject matter of this application.” The resolution in question was passed by his six co-trustees (Dinshaw Mehta, Arnavaz Mistry, Jimmy Mistry, Khojeste Mistree, Yazdi Desai and Armaity Tirandaz).

The CC noted, "Having considered the rival submissions of the parties carefully, the only issue (is) whether the directions shall be given to the opponents to furnish the copies of the minutes of the meetings. (This) as referred earlier would be administrative in nature. Taking into consideration the nature of the relief/direction sought for, (they) do not fall within the purview of judicial inquiry. Supplying or furnishing of the copies under any circumstances, cannot be a legal dispute between the parties, it can be an administrative direction only, requiring no judicial inquiry.”

Accordingly the ACC issued the following orders requiring the BPP trustees "to furnish the information to the applicant as follows within seven days.

Minutes of the meeting of earlier board approving 104 flats allotment.

Minutes of the meeting of the new board reconfirming the allotment to 62 applicants.

Minutes of the meeting of the new board rejecting 40 applicants.

Copies of the objections received in response to the newspaper notices.

After receiving this information, applicant shall not misuse (it) against the interest of the trust.”