Est. 1964 · Mumbai1964 – 2025 · every issue, digitised
Parsiana
The global Zoroastrian link medium
Editorial Viewpoint

Hope lies eternal...

"Since the mediation was still going on, the bench directed the matter to be listed in August 2013. One hopes that the matter can be resolved before that.” So wrote Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) chairman Dinshaw Mehta in his Chairman’s Message (The BPP Review, May 2013).
"Hopes” is an odd word for the chairman to be using allowing that it is for the trustees to make up their minds what they want to do — settle the matter regarding the two so-called renegade priests’ case or place the dispute back before the apex court.
With an able mediator like jurist Sriram Panchu — whose name was recommended by the Supreme Court justices with the parties’ consent — there is no reason why a decision to settle or not could not have been taken in six months or so. The order was passed on April 18, 2011 and the first meeting was scheduled for May of that year.
As a result of the current stalemate the trustees are viewed as being indecisive while their legal rights in deciding religious issues remain in limbo. In addition there is the prolonged chagrin caused to the two priests at the heart of the dispute.
On June 9, 2009 the BPP had banned Ervads Khusroo Madon and Framroze Mirza from praying at the Doongerwadi and two fire temples controlled by the BPP, the Godavara Agiary in the Fort area and the S. F. Jokhi Agiary at Godrej Baug primarily because they were performing the last rites for Parsi/Irani Zoroastrians opting for cremation.
Mehta noted the BPP’s special leave petition was listed for hearing on May 9, 2013 before the Supreme Court Bench of Justices Gyan Sudha Misra and J. Chelameswar "where senior counsel Mr Shyam Divan appeared for Homi Khusrokhan and Jamsheed Kanga whilst we were represented by junior advocates from the office of the firm of Karanjawala and Co.” The chairman no doubt was at pains to point out that junior advocates were present on account of the criticism launched against the BPP for spending crores of rupees on frivolous litigation. According to one source the BPP’s lawyers’ fees for the mediation alone are in the vicinity of one crore rupees. Mehta denies the report saying other matters were included as well.
It is now over two years since the division bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra while praising the community for its "outstanding contribution to the country,” observed they were "sad to notice some disputes between them.” While directing the parties to mediate the Justices had observed, "needless to say, in mediation the proceedings are entirely confidential.” The purpose of confidentiality is to ensure the talks take place in a conducive environment, without the public breathing down the necks of the litigants or either party rushing to the media to voice their reservations or grievances. But the gag also resulted in the community being kept in the dark as to the progress of the talks and the inordinate time being taken to resolve the issue one way or the other, not to mention the enormous expense entailed. The trustees also escaped having to answer why they were dilly-dallying over the matter. Erroneous reports even appeared in one of the national dailies claiming that the matter had been settled!
There is little doubt that the BPP has spent between three to four crore rupees to basically bar one priest, Madon, from occasionally praying at Doongerwadi; the other two agiaries being of little consequence. If the matter is not settled then another one or two crores may easily be spent on litigating in the Supreme Court. Mirza capitulated and accepted the ban and gave an affidavit to that effect in the Bombay High Court (BHC). Madon remained defiant. The lawyers for Kanga and Khusrokhan fought pro bono. But the charges for the mediator and mediation were shared by the BPP and the duo (though Panchu has not charged his fees of late).
Initially, BHC Judge V. M. Kanade refused to give a decision on the originating summons filed by Kanga and Khusrokhan, but a division bench of Justices Dr Dhananjay Chandrachud and Anoop Mohta stated that the BPP had exceeded their powers under the trust deed. The BPP then moved the apex court.
On several fronts the apex trust appears unable to move ahead or to resolve knotty problems. Despite a public assurance to provide a written proposal outlining the redevelopment scheme at Nowroz Baug, the matter is still under consideration by the BPP. One would have assumed that prior to the historic meet with the occupants of Nowroz Baug on March 24 this year a comprehensive proposal would have been prepared which had only to be finalized, copied and disseminated. After all, Mehta told the gathering, "Whatever we have presented you is final. The cost of construction keeps escalating. We do not intend to have any more dialog on the issue.” Three months later the residents are still awaiting the written proposal.
Even at the B. S. Panthaky Baug, Mehta laments in his Message that "due to dilatory tactics, our plans to construct 300 to 400 flats…are continuously being delayed.” The trustees had told the BHC in 2009 that the flats would be constructed in two years after which if they were not built, they would approach the courts for extension. It is now four years and it is doubtful if the project has gone past even the planning approval formalities.
A proposal to redevelop the Parsi Lying-In Hospital (PLIH) is now languishing in court primarily over an ego tussle between some BPP trustees and the Hospital’s Managing Committee (MC). The MC filed an originating summons in the BHC regarding the rights of the MC trustees who manage the Hospital and the BPP who own the Hospital. The BPP in turn has filed a writ petition regarding the PLIH in the BHC!
At Dhunbai Wadi a redevelopment project is mired in controversy with emails from BPP trustee Yazdi Desai being published in the Parsi Times weekly of June 8, 2013 accusing Mehta of "undue haste in finalizing” the bids received in response to a tender (see "Dhunbai Wadi tenders,” Events and Personalities, pg 17).
With only two years left for five trustees to end their term, the list of unfinished business continues to grow. If they intend to leave any lasting legacy they need to get their act together right away.


◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive