The court added that trustees must keep the "interest of the Trust and beneficiaries" in mind while projecting everyone's viewpoint. "That would be, in our opinion, amount to real selfless service to the Trust and its beneficiaries," the court order stated.
The Supreme Court, while disposing of a petition challenging the redevelopment of the Parsi Lying-in Hospital (PLIH) in Fort, has asked trustees to keep the "beneficiary" interest in mind while deciding on Parsi properties or schemes related to their redevelopment or usage.
In an order passed by Justice RK Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre on Tuesday, the court stated, "Trustees who belong to the Parsi community enjoy high status in society, and are persons of eminence in their respective fields. There should, therefore, be no reason as to why any trustee should try to cause harm to the interest of the Trust(s) or for that matter should act prejudicially and against the interest of the Trust."
The court added that trustees must keep the "interest of the Trust and beneficiaries" in mind while projecting everyone's viewpoint. "That would be, in our opinion, amount to real selfless service to the Trust and its beneficiaries," the court order stated.
Spread across over 11,000 sq ft in a prime area in South Mumbai, the Parsi Lying-in Hospital land is said to be worth crores. Parsi philanthropists had developed a hospital primarily for child births when the land was leased to it for hospital purposes more than a century ago. However, it remained non-functional for a long time.
The hospital's managing committee, which looks after its day-to-day affairs, had entered into an agreement with a company to develop the property into a 120-bed super-speciality hospital, which will also be open to other communities.
The deal, however, ran into trouble since its inception. The trustees of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) — the hospital was given by the philanthropists who developed it into the BPP in 1924 — had differing views. A PIL was filed by the then chairman of the BPP alleging that it was being developed through favouritism, and that the Trust would be at a loss.
The SC order has stated that the trustees were at liberty to enter into an agreement in the future with anyone after following due process of law, but should keep in mind the interest of the Trust and the beneficiaries.
"I am happy with the order. They were giving away prime property and continue to do so to people they know. Now, they will have to go into public advertisement before they decide on anything," said Dinshaw Mehta, petitioner and former chairperson of the BPP, who filed the case.
"Nowhere does the court say that we have to go into public advertisement. On the contrary, all that he (Mehta) has been pleading was rejected by court. The general directives given by the court is a stated position in law. Can anyone dream of the court saying anything else? We have been keeping the interest of beneficiaries in mind. The court infact said that wishes of donors should be taken forward," said Kersi Randeria, trustee of BPP.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Parsi Lying-in Hospital")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}