Continuing his arguments on behalf of the six Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trustees who have refused to share trust information with their colleague Noshir Dadrawala, counsel Percy Ghandy told the assistant charity commissioner (ACC) A. E. Shingane that while a change report is pending, the ACC could not issue any directives under section 41A to the trustees regarding the functioning of the trust. Change reports are filed with the office of the Charity Commissioner whenever there is a change of trusteeship.
Citing a case, R. N. Engineer vs Desai before the Joint Charity Commissioner earlier this year, Ghandy argued directions could only be given when "the change report is approved.” Until then the issue as to who are trustees "cannot be crystallized.” In the BPP matter not only was the report pending since October 2008 when the trusteeship elections were held but "it was not undisputed,” Ghandy said. "They (the aggrieved party) have challenged it,” interposed BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta.
Advocate Sagheer Khan who appeared on behalf of Dadrawala interpreted Ghandy’s arguments to imply that without ratification of the change report the trustee "cannot function as trustees.”
Shingane noted that "the trustees are conducting meetings. What are the legal consequences of the decisions taken by them?” He inquired what the "status” of the trustees was if the change report is pending. "De facto (implies) those who are in charge. If a trustees’s term is over” but he continues in office till new trustees are appointed can he say "I am not liable” for my decisions? "If a point arises regarding their responsibility they cannot say (they are not liable),” observed Shingane.
Despite a wooden placard placed on the desk of the ACC stipulating "Be brief” and pointed out to Ghandy by Khan, Ghandy’s arguments will continue on August 25, 2010. Shingane noted a "full and fair opportunity to both parties” has to be given.
While the ACC and others were waiting for Ghandy to arrive as he was delayed in traffic, they chatted about the high wages people earned today and the shortage of skilled people. The affable Shingane noted when he was a judge in the labor courts, bell boys in five star hotels earned more than him. He also lamented that law was not the choice of students who topped the merit lists today. They opted for engineering or accounts or business. Only those who could not get admission into the professional institutions of their choice opted for law. He himself was "forced” by his father, a lawyer, to take up the profession and now insisted one of his sons do the same. He opted to become a judicial officer because he felt it was more prestigious though less remunerative than private practice.
Khan noted he had been hunting for a stenographer for the past three years without success. He now pays Rs 1,000 an hour for stenographic services. If he dictates for an hour, the stenographer takes another two hours to transcribe the dictation and proof it, bringing the total bill to Rs 3,000. Advocate Mangesh Chavan who represents the BPP in legal matters recalled once charging a client Rs 5,000 for some legal work only to find the stenographer had billed the client Rs 7,000 in the same matter for his services! Chavan then contemplated revising his rates.