"The faltering fires"
With reference to your Editorial Viewpoint, "The faltering fires," (Parsiana, February 7, 2019) concerning The B. D. Petit Parsee General Hospital (PGH), Aspi Deboo and I have no issues with Jal and Pervin Shroff’s donation.
Our issue is with Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP)/ PGH utilizing Rs 140 crores worth of property to free up floor space index to accept a Rs 160 crore donation; handing over a 2,00,000 sq ft bare shell building to a third party with zero legal paperwork; proposing to run the new hospital for a purpose contrary to the trust deed.
Handing over a Rs 1,000 crore property without complying with the law is the crux of our grievances.
Just because the Shroffs are giving a Rs 160 crore donation, does not give a license to PGH/BPP to disregard their trust deed and the law. Nothing is stopping the PGH/BPP from applying for permissions. If their intentions are to save PGH, ought they not to do it within the framework of the law?
ZORU BHATHENA
zoru@hotmail.com
The editors reply:
In our article "Will it go through?" (Parsiana, January 21, 2019) we quoted the PGH trust deed as stating the executive committee "is given the power under the trust deed to demolish and reconstruct the whole or any portion of the structures then standing upon the trust premises… It is further provided that the committee is entitled to ‘erect additional buildings without pulling down the present buildings as the case may be.’"
The Memorandum of Association dated November 14, 1922, provides: "The objects of (PGH) shall be primarily to provide, maintain and manage in Bombay a hospital for Parsis…
In their reply to the application by Khushru and Meher Zaiwala before the charity commissioner, PGH stated: "It is pertinent that in respect of the incidental and subsidiary objects, there is no mention that the same has to be for Parsis only. The primary object being a hospital for Parsis as long as the incidental objects are also conducive to the primary object, i.e. restoration of health, there would be no issue."
So far as "zero legal paperwork" is concerned, the PGH spokesperson states that "at least four leading solicitors’ firms were involved in finalizing the documents. The crux of the grievance is that the property is being handed over without obtaining the permission of the Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. ‘Alienation’ contemplated by Section 36 is only if there is a sale, exchange, gift or lease of a building for a period exceeding three years by a public trust and not otherwise. As PGH has only entered into a management agreement giving a mere license to manage the new hospital, and not to lease it, in our view, there is no ‘alienation’ as contemplated by Section 36.
The Shroffs and Medanta have given PGH till March 31 this year to resolve the issues within the community, otherwise their commitment will be rescinded.
The Zaiwallas, Aspi Deboo and Zoru Bhathena have filed separate applications before the Charity Commissioner objecting to the proposal. The dates for hearing their applications are February 20 and March 20. The likelihood of a resolution by the March 31 deadline appears remote.