Noshir Dadrawala had inquired of me ("Hurdles to the Hospital,” Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, March 21, 2018) whether Breach Candy Hospital (BCH) or Dr Keki Turel had actually given any concrete proposal in writing even though in my letter (Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, March 7, 2018), I had given May 8, 2014 as the date of BCH’s offer letter to the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trustees and May 6, 2014 as the date of Dr Keki Turel’s letter offering better proposals than Krimson Health Ventures Private Limited. Dadrawala wanted me to share these offers with him, though both the offer letters were sent to the managing committee (MC) of the Parsi Lying-In Hospital (PLIH) of which he is a member.
Subsequently Piroja Jokhi once again raked up the same issue (Readers’ Forum,” Parsiana May 7, 2018) that I did not quote the terms or the details of the "secret offers” made to the BPP. To lay this ghost to an end once and for all, I am enclosing herein both the offer letters. I stress that whose offer is better is inconsequential. My complaint was that due process of a public notice, tender and auction was not observed, which is mandatory for every public charitable trust wanting to alienate trust property. No private deal, however lucrative, can be made.
Jokhi remarks that if I had apprised the members of the "MC of PLIH on the merits of the deal, they would have surely acted in the best interest of the institution and not created hurdles.” Our BPP board approved BCH as a better offer and our trustees agreed to give joint inspection of the PLIH premises to the trustees of BCH.
Jokhi writes that I was at the helm of BPP and I had done nothing to safeguard the interests of PLIH. I would like to inform her that the MC was so well entrenched in PLIH that we were not allowed to even enter the property without their permission. We were not allowed access to any of their records or documents on the ground that the full administration of PLIH vests in the MC and we were only custodial trustees who are supposed to follow their instructions. In that scenario there was nothing that the trustees of the BPP could do.
A letter from Cyrus Rustom Patel ("Lessons to be learned,” Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, March 7, 2018) refers to the Supreme Court striking down a lease/sale agreement, after 14 years, on the grounds that proper procedure for selling the trust property involving advertisements, tenders and auctions were not followed.
Dadrawala expects either BCH or Turel to approach them again after the letter dated August 19, 2014 written by the secretary warning them to stay away as they have already executed the lease deed with Krimson. Nobody wants to be embroiled in needless controversy between warring factions. And even if they did, would it not once again amount to a similar private deal without public notice?
What I fail to understand is why the MC is even now averse to issuing a public notice for redevelopment of PLIH on the same terms and conditions given to Krimson. No public notice has been given in the last three years and the property is going to waste.
If the MC issues a public notice on the same conditions given to Krimson, I will certainly try and get better offers for the Hospital’s redevelopment.
DINSHAW R. MEHTA
Former chairman. Bombay Parsi Punchayet
The editors reply
Both letters expressed interest in the proposal and laid out financial terms. The BCH letter stated their offer was "subject to technical, legal and financial due diligence.” Turel also laid down a similar proviso. Both letters do not specify the number of years the lease is to be entered into or any details, terms and conditions other than the financial package to be offered, subject to due diligence.