Archive

The article "Malcontent in Mhow” (Parsiana, September 21, 2016) elicited a strong response from a former trustee and managing committee member of the Mhow Anjuman Pervin Jehangir. In an email dated October 21, 2016 she termed the article "one-sided” and stated her point of view. Parsiana forwaded her letter to the Mhow Anjuman for their response. Both pieces are published below. Parsiana has edited Jehangir’s letter for stylistic purposes and shortened the background brief supplied by the Anjuman. 

 

 

 

Pervin Jehangir’s letter:
In the article "Malcontent in Mhow” it was stated: "While some fire temple trustees make fervid pleas and offer attractive packages to lure priests, others have a hard time getting rid of the ones they have. The Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuman, Mhow (PZAM) has been at loggerheads with their priest, Ervad Bomi Karanjia, who refuses to leave despite being served a termination notice 19 months ago…”
The one-sided article has failed to inform the community that the termination notice was issued by individuals with no authority to represent PZAM.
The Mhow Anjuman is the first one to have signed the custodianship agreement with the Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India (FPZAI) in 1995 and the FPZAI agreed via a court approved scheme to conduct elections of the PZAM Trust.
The election commissioner appointed by them that time, despite having legal opinion already at hand clearly stating that "para 12 read with 2(d) of the PZAM byelaws permit voting by way of a letter for all members (resident and non-resident)” and despite precedent wherein all PZAM members have been allowed to vote by letter if they could not be personally present, unreasonably and without any change in the byelaws, disallowed a majority of eligible members from exercising their right to vote.
This right has been upheld vide the 3rd Assistant District Judge’s court order dated January 30, 2016, and confirmed once again when the review petition filed by these individuals was  dismissed  vide order dated May 11, 2016. These individuals have now filed an appeal in the High Court at Indore, for a fourth opinion on the same subject along with a request for a stay order — but have not been granted any relief so far.

 

 

 

 

It is abundantly clear that the PZAM election of December 14, 2014 was conducted without following the legal process as spelt out in PZAM’s byelaws valid at the time and which interpretation has been upheld by the court, thus making the election null and void. Persons elected thus cannot be validly elected trustees, managing committee members, office bearers or working trustees of the PZAM Trust.
The Mhow court is currently considering whether persons who have not been validly elected have the right to issue the termination notice to Ervad Bomi Karanjia who has served the Mhow community for 16 years without taking even a day off — as has been publicly and repeatedly appreciated by the former president of PZAM (2011-2014).
The same logic applies to these individuals’  authority to sell Mhow Anjuman Trust properties and make expenses from the Trust’s accounts, change PZAM byelaws, change the PZAM charity policy meant for the poor and needy Parsi and Irani Zoroastrians, to file cases in the courts, to hire and fire staff members, etc.
Cyrus M. Mancherji, president PZAM, replies:
Malicious, false and defamatory propaganda is being conducted by Pervin Jehangir and her proxies in the print and electronic media in spite of the matters concerned being sub judice.
The question of "voting rights by letter” is sub judice and Jehangir’s application for a stay on the elections held on December 14, 2014 was rejected by the District Court. Jehangir did contest the elections and only after she lost miserably did she find fault with the election process. The judgment of the Assistant District Judge (ADJ) court, Mhow is a verbatim Hindi version of the English Byelaws 12 of PZAM at the time, both of which are ambiguous and vague on whether only residents can vote by letter or non-residents as well. Hence an appeal has been filed in the Madhya Pradesh (MP) High Court, Indore, which is sub judice and we await its judgment.
In the meanwhile, Jehangir is alleging that the elections are null and void, and that the elected trustees are illegal, and all matters concerning the management of the Trust invalid since December 2014. She and her proxies have pleaded in the various cases pending in the Mhow courts that the trustees are not authorized to represent PZAM. The final order from the MP High Court, Indore, will settle the matter.
During part of the time of her father, Dr Behram M. Masani’s tenure as PZAM president from 2006-09, Jehangir exercised extra-constitutional power by acting as a nodal person for charities, donations, appointments, etc for PZAM from Bombay. Towards the end of Masani’s tenure and life, as he was terminally ill and being cared for by Jehangir at her Bombay home for almost a year during 2009-10, she, along with Cmde Aspi D. Marker began to remote control PZAM from Bombay, operating under Masani’s name. They changed the constitution (byelaws) by not following Rule 39 of the Byelaws, 1996, (which required a 3/5 majority to change the byelaws), but by formulating a Scheme of Management (SOM) to be approved by the Registrar of Public Trusts (ROPT)/Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) so as to allow non-resident members to be elected to the managing committee, whereby they could manage PZAM and dispense charity to the poor Parsis of Bombay, Gujarat, etc in precedence to the Parsis of Mhow who, as resident members, are the rightful beneficiaries of PZAM, a trust created by various benevolent Parsi donors over 100 years ago primarily for them.
After the court approved the SOM in May 2011, an election was held in November 2011, and a managing committee formed where both Jehangir, who was elected, and Marker, who was nominated by the Federation of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India (FPZAI), were members. From the first day, they adopted an adversarial approach as their objective of remote-controlled management from Bombay was defeated by the democratically elected managing committee.
In January 2012, the FPZAI and PZAM realized that the SOM had surreptitiously overturned the custodianship agreement takeover clause by recognizing non-resident members within the total membership, thus providing them control over PZAM assets in perpetuity. To correct this anomaly, an amendments case was filed in the ADJ Court, Mhow. Jehangir was the sole objector.
The case was dismissed on the technical ground that the permission of the ROPT/SDM had not been taken u/s 26 of the MP Public Trusts Act, 1951 to approach the court, and not on the merits or contents of the amendments applied for.
During the three-year tenure of that managing committee from November 2011 to December 2014, the non-resident members on the managing committee ended up making 111 objections and obstructions in the day-to-day functioning of the Anjuman, some with recourse to the ROPT/SDM and courts, but all frivolous. These were finally rejected by the ROPT/SDM and the courts, and defeated by the general body. Jehangir even used her veto power to stop the sale of properties.
Instead of accepting the verdict of the people, Jehangir and Marker chose to wage war through proxies, Ervad Bomi B. Karanjia and his family, and Jehangir N. Mehervaid and his wife, along with some others. The proxies filed complaints with the police and ROPT/SDM and finally defamed the high priest of our community (Dastur Khurshed Dastoor) and the erstwhile honorary secretary of FPZAI (former Bombay Parsi Punchayet trustee Khojeste Mistree) by filing a false complaint of kidnapping against them.
With the unanimous written consent of all the trustees, majority approval of the general body and consent of the FPZAI, we submitted our application to the ROPT/SDM for his sanction u/s 14 of the MP Public Trusts Act, 1951, for sale of five properties. In the meantime, Jehangir sent letters of objection to the Secretary, Ministry of Minority Affairs, Government of India, and to the ROPT/SDM, Mhow, as did Mehervaid and Karanjia, who also initiated false propaganda in the local press and the internet. Our application has neither been stayed nor rejected, but is awaiting permission from the ROPT/SDM.
On April 6, 2015 a petition signed by a majority of resident members of PZAM was submitted to the ROPT/SDM and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mhow, reiterating their resolve to sell the properties and terminate the services of the priest.
Jehangir thereupon circulated an email venting her frustration, after being defeated in the elections, with a misinterpretation on the formation of the Byelaws, 2015, and operation of some of its clauses pertaining to membership. The Byelaws are prospective and not retrospective. Her betrayal of the Trust and the Parsi community in Mhow is apparent in the last paragraph where she suggests the government take over its management!
On January 30, 2016, the ADJ court, Mhow (where the voting rights case was transferred) issued an order disallowing voting by email but permitting voting by letter under special circumstances. It did not specify whether this was for resident members as per our Rule 12 of the Byelaws, 1996, or for all members. To clarify this, a review petition was filed on February 26, 2016, prior to our application in the High Court as advised by senior advocate Ashok Chitale. In the meanwhile, Jehangir circulated a note on March 21, 2016 after media publicity yielded no result and representation to the ROPT met a similar fate. Our advocate advised us to continue managing the administration of the Anjuman.
On April 29, 2016, an appeal against the order dated January 30, 2016 was filed by PZAM in the MP High Court, Indore along with a stay application. Justice S. C. Sharma ordered mediation by Dr Renu Bharaktiya vide his order dated July 5, 2016.