“Hurdles to the Hospital”

Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trustee and Parsi Lying-In Hospital (PLIH) managing committee (MC) member Noshir Dadrawala in his letter "Hurdles to the Hospital” (Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, February 7, 2018) harps on only one issue that if there were better offers why were they not placed before the Bombay High Court? In my letter in reply to Piroja Jokhi (see "Hurdles to the Hospital,” Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, January 21, 2017), I had given reasons why I could not do so but the Editor in his wisdom edited that portion. But now I would like to bring before the community the actions of the leaders in the MC of PLIH as explained below. Dadrawala may not be aware of subsequent developments.
Breach Candy Hospital (BCH) by its letter dated May 8, 2014 offered palpably better terms than that of Krimson Health Ventures Private Limited. So also Dr Keki Turel by his offer letter dated May 6, 2014. (Parsiana inquired of Mehta whether we could peruse the offers. He replied, "They are in the BPP files.”) Both were initially favorably considered by the BPP board of trustees. Several meetings with them and site visits by BCH trustees were made to ascertain the scope of redevelopment. PLIH by its letter dated June 4, 2014 attempted to give a comparative statement to show how Krimson’s offer was better. But their manipulations were exposed and by our letter dated August 12, 2014 to BCH, permission was granted to BCH to carry out due diligence in support of their offer.
It was then that the secretary of PLIH by his letter dated August 19, 2014 wrote to BCH informing them that there is an existing agreement executed with Krimson for redevelopment and that had been accepted by the majority BPP trustees. In that letter, the MC pointed out that they would not entertain further offers for redevelopment from other third parties and advised BCH not to pursue the due diligence exercise.
It is because of this negative letter from PLIH that both parties withdrew and refrained from any further negotiations. When the consent terms dated February 20, 2015 were filed by four majority trustees, the High Court requested me to get the better offers. But when I approached BCH they very categorically informed me that they were no longer interested in the proposal as they did not want to be involved when there was infighting among the trustees and they would be caught in the crossfire. The High Court, by its order dated April 30, 2015, accepted the consent terms on the grounds that the BPP election scheme states that the majority decision is binding on all. The Court specifically mentioned that it would not go into the merits of the allegations made by BPP trustee Armaity Tirandaz and me but allowed us to move the Supreme Court for relief if we so desired.
It is important to note that Dadrawala does not deny that all the trustees of BPP, the actual owners of the PLIH, had unanimously filed a writ petition in 2013 challenging the MC claim to be trustees of PLIH, seeking cancellation of the Charity Commissioner’s approval being obtained by PLIH without knowledge and approval of the BPP trustees and without public notice. It was only after the infighting started that the majority trustees sided with the PLIH MC. The Supreme Court has on several occasions castigated trustees for not issuing public notices for competitive bids.
Dadrawala does not clarify why the PLIH MC is not now issuing a public notice for redevelopment of the Hospital.
DINSHAW MEHTA
Former chairman, Bombay Parsi Punchayet
dinshaw@dinshawmehta.com