Events & Personalities
Application “maintainable”
The application filed by Khushru (pictured) and Meher Zaiwala opposing the proposal to set up a cosmopolitan Hospital on The B. D. Petit Parsee General Hospital (PGH) grounds has been held as "maintainable,” by the joint charity commissioner (JCC) Shayana Patil. "The application moved by persons having interest in the trust for directions to protect property of trust and for removal of trustees on various grounds under section 41D is maintainable before this authority.” Though "elaborate arguments were tried to be advanced on points of factual position ... (on the) management contract, however, such argument cannot be entertained at this stage as those would be relevant under section 41D(2-b) to ascertain whether there is prima facie material to frame the charges or not. As such it would be essential to proceed further by taking the reply of all the respondents… on record and hear the matter on merit.”
The matter pertains to the USD 22.5 million (Rs 160 crores) donation pledged by Pervin and Jal Shroff of Hong Kong to develop a cosmopolitan hospital on the PGH grounds from whose turnover a percentage would accrue to PGH in addition to a fixed sum. As most of PGH’s Parsi-only patients are either free or subsidized, the Hospital requires a steady, reliable, long term source of income, besides donations. PGH management, with the approval of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) which owns the property, had entered into a 30-year agreement with the Gurgaon based Medanta Group of hospitals to run the proposed new venture. The Zaiwalas filed an application before the Charity Commissioner opposing the project, as did also businessmen Aspi Deboo and Zoru Bhathena.
The Zaiwalas alleged there was "prima facie” evidence that the documents executed between the Trust/Society and Medanta Corporation "effects alienation of the property” (and) though "the document is termed as Hospital Management Contract (HMC), the clauses therein are made out to reveal substantial transfer of rights in the property over a long period to a third party,” noted Patil in her order dated September 30, 2019.
After waiting almost six years, the Shroffs withdrew their offer this October 1, "due to lack of progress.” Jal noted, "It would be irresponsible of me at the age of 82 to keep alive a pledge made nearly six years ago. Our family is 100% supportive of the decision.”
Whether PGH will proceed with the hearings is not known as yet. The BPP trustees reportedly did not appoint a lawyer to represent them during the hearings, either intentionally or through oversight.
The matter pertains to the USD 22.5 million (Rs 160 crores) donation pledged by Pervin and Jal Shroff of Hong Kong to develop a cosmopolitan hospital on the PGH grounds from whose turnover a percentage would accrue to PGH in addition to a fixed sum. As most of PGH’s Parsi-only patients are either free or subsidized, the Hospital requires a steady, reliable, long term source of income, besides donations. PGH management, with the approval of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) which owns the property, had entered into a 30-year agreement with the Gurgaon based Medanta Group of hospitals to run the proposed new venture. The Zaiwalas filed an application before the Charity Commissioner opposing the project, as did also businessmen Aspi Deboo and Zoru Bhathena.The Zaiwalas alleged there was "prima facie” evidence that the documents executed between the Trust/Society and Medanta Corporation "effects alienation of the property” (and) though "the document is termed as Hospital Management Contract (HMC), the clauses therein are made out to reveal substantial transfer of rights in the property over a long period to a third party,” noted Patil in her order dated September 30, 2019.
After waiting almost six years, the Shroffs withdrew their offer this October 1, "due to lack of progress.” Jal noted, "It would be irresponsible of me at the age of 82 to keep alive a pledge made nearly six years ago. Our family is 100% supportive of the decision.”
Whether PGH will proceed with the hearings is not known as yet. The BPP trustees reportedly did not appoint a lawyer to represent them during the hearings, either intentionally or through oversight.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive