Three Mhow properties sold

Armed with a Supreme Court (SC) order permitting them to sell five properties, the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuman, Mhow (PZAM) on September 18, 2022 sold three, earning over Rs 7.5 crore (USD 918,549). "The matter of sale of some unused and/or dilapidated properties of the Zoroastrian Anjuman was on the cards for years; however this was opposed at different levels of government and the courts,” stated PZAM honorary secretary and working trustee Zal Cowasji in an email dated November 15. Parsiana had sought his response to the SC order dated January 28.
The SC overturned the previous orders of the Registrar of Public Trusts and the Madhya Pradesh (MP) High Court bench at Indore, stating: "Any organization which is self-governed, cannot be subjected to overarching state control. As long as its decisions are well informed, and grounded on relevant considerations, the interests of the trust are those defined by its members.”
The three-member bench of Justices Uday Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and Bela Trivedi noted, "The trust may proceed to implement its decision, but subject to fresh valuation of each of the properties which is proposed to be sold. This valuation should be disclosed to the Registrar who can facilitate the implementation of the decision to sell to the highest bidder through public tender.”
Accordingly, fresh valuations were ordered by PZAM for "four of the properties earmarked for sale, utilizing the services of two independent government authorized valuers… and the higher valuation in each case was set as the reserve price for each property,” Cowasji noted.
Thereafter, advertisements were placed in The Times of India (all MP) and Dainik Bhaskar (Indore only) on August 22. A public meeting was held on Sunday, September 18 at 11.30 a.m. at Dotiwala Hall, Parsi Agiary Complex. PZAM trustee Cyrus Mancherji was in the chair while Cowasji explained the procedure to be followed. Bids were received for three of the four properties offered. For the fourth property — an open land and garages — it was decided that "as the circumstances surrounding this property had changed due to the death of its tenant, the same would not be sold in future.” The monies received "have been invested as per the advice of our auditor in fixed deposits with scheduled banks, whereby our Anjuman is exempt from paying any capital gains tax,” Cowasji explained.
The two respondents opposing the proposed sale were the sub divisional officer, the Registrar of Public Trusts and former Mhow resident Pervin Jehangir. Jehangir contends "the persons who formed the PZAM managing committee on May 8, 2022… stand suspended from the Mhow Anjuman and cannot be managing committee members of the PZAM or its office bearers.” She therefore terms the sale of the properties "illegal.” She also cited the Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India (FPZAI) joint honorary secretary Noshir Dadrawala’s email of September 4, claiming the May 2022 elections "are not in accordance with the final scheme as read along with bye-laws 2015 and hence not valid and binding on FPZAI. Thus the elections shall hold no validity or legal standing for the FPZAI.”
Cowasji responded: "Jehangir’s allegations are patently false and smack of desperation, as they have no basis in fact. She has raised such issues in the past with various statutory bodies, and not once have any of her allegations been heeded or taken note of. We could go on ad infinitum on the issues; however this is all we will state here, and we trust this matter is closed.”
Tracing the history of the case, the SC bench cited the Registrar’s justification in rejecting the trust application for sale of property. "If property is continued to be sold for meeting expenses of the trust, then the entire property would be exhausted in that condition. No such plan has been submitted on behalf of the trust… The trust property remains secured and expenses of the trust are also met. Information has also been given by the trust that trust expenses are about Rs 26 lakhs per annum. In my opinion, it is necessary and proper to take expert opinion as to what measures can be taken to limit the expenses… and augment income of the trust.”
The Anjuman then approached the MP High Court which noted, "In all fairness, the trust should have made all possible endeavors to repair the buildings which are trust properties and to ensure that the rich cultural heritage of the Parsis, which is still alive in the township of Mhow, is not destroyed by selling it to builders and to other persons at throwaway prices and, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Registrar, Public Trust was certainly justified in rejecting the application filed by the trust. No case for interference is made out in the matter. The present writ petition is dismissed.” The trust appealed, unsuccessfully, to a division bench of the High Court.
Contrasting the powers of the Registrar and the Charity Commissioner in MP and Maharashtra, the apex court noted the Bombay Public Trust Act "confers decidedly wider powers on the Commissioner (including imposition of such conditions as he may think fit to impose, regard being had to the interest or benefit or protection of the trust) than the kind of powers conferred on the Registrar, under Section 14 of the MP Public Trusts Act. Under the latter enactment, the Registrar’s power to grant or withhold sanction is guided by the stipulations in the trust instrument, or under a law, as directed by a court. There is, consequently, a marked difference in the nature of the powers under the two enactments. The Bombay law confers a wider supervisory role; however, such a wide power is not available to the Registrar, under the MP Public Trusts Act.”
The SC bench stated, "The aim of public control is to ensure that the trust is administered efficiently and smoothly. The state interest is that far, and no more; it cannot mean that the state can dictate what decisions can or cannot be taken. In the specific context of alienation of properties, depending on the nature of the oversight, the state’s interest is to ensure that valuable assets of public trusts are not frittered away. It is for this reason that provisions like Section 36 (of the Bombay Public Trusts Act) clearly enunciate a principle that the Commissioner can impose such conditions as may be appropriate. However the statute in the present case (the MP Public Trusts Act) does not contain such a power to impose conditions; the only considerations that weigh with the officer (Registrar) are the stipulations in law, or in the instrument of public interest. Other than these considerations, the principle of autonomy and democratic decision-making cannot be undermined…
"In the facts of the present case, the record shows that the decision to sell the properties was a consequence of a two-layered process, where all members participated and decided to dispose of the property. The decision was based on a realistic assessment of the trust’s existing and future liabilities, the obligations towards charity, aid to senior citizens, education, medical aid and religious ceremonies imposed by the trust instrument. Furthermore, the proposed spending from the returns earned through the investment made from the consideration arising from sale were also outlined and clearly disclosed. Most crucially, the properties were valued, and proposed to be sold, by public tender. Disregarding all this disclosed transparency, the Registrar, on the basis of her subjective notion of what constituted best interests of the trust, could not have rejected the application, as she did. The High Court, in this court’s opinion, fell into error in endorsing that rejection.”
The trustees and office bearers of the PZAM are: Cyrus Mancherji, president; Capt Jamshed Appoo, vice president; Jahangir Masalawala, honorary treasurer; Zal Cowasji, honorary secretary; Jemi Pawvalla, honorary joint secretary; Divya Cowasji and Rati Tantra, trustees; and Tehmton Anklesaria and Farrokh Rustomji, FPZAI representatives.