V.N.

Bhattacharya
Business & Corporate Strategy

DHARNA

One sultry Sunday afternoon 20 resident owners of an apartment block in Pune got together to
discuss a problem they had been grappling with for several months. According to a government
notification the building in which they had purchased their apartments from a reputed builder,
contravened certain building regulations. The notification permitted all such owners to apply for
relief under a special dispensation. They would have to pay application money, regularisation
fees, and penalties in certain cases to obtain a certificate from the government that would
render their property good. Each owner was expected to shell out anywhere between Rs five
hundred thousand and a million. No wonder they were all in a foul mood.

The prime property for which each one had paid over Rs. 10 million was an iconic building in
Pune. Its value had appreciated substantially in the last five years and had greatly enhanced
the reputation of the builder. At the time of purchase, the builder had assured the property met
all legal requirements, zoning laws and building rules. The recent notification appeared to belie
this promise. They had approached the builder and he had brushed aside their objections
saying there was no need to worry and that the property was perfectly legal. He had showed
them some documents that seemed to support his point of view. However, he was unable or
unwilling to provide an indemnity to each resident. When pressed he took the stand that the
sale between him and each owner had been legally concluded and he could no longer be held
responsible after the fact.

The advice of the Association's lawyer was not positive. He had advised them to apply to the
government for regularisation of the property. Inability to do that, he had warned, would affect
resale value of their property. Besides, the government could levy penal fines if they did not
avail of the opportunity to regularise their property now.

Ajit Pavate the secretary of the Owners' Association began the meeting on a strident note.
"We cannot be taken for a ride in this manner. What Rivoli Group has done,” naming the
builder, “is tantamount to cheating.”
“Hear, hear,” an elderly gentleman endorsed from the rear of the room.
“I propose we do a dharna in front of the builder's office the Monday after next. We should go
there en masse, preferably with a number of ladies from amongst us and shout slogans. We
will carry placards and banners and bring it to the notice of all that he is a cheat.”
“Should we inform the press?” asked Soma Ray. She was a journalist before she gave up her
career to raise children.
Many agreed that would be a great idea. If the dharna was successful and attracted the
attention of the Press, surely newspapers would carry stories of Rivoli’s misdeeds. The
builder's reputation would take a hit and along with it, prospects of his new projects.
Pochkanwala, Managing Director and de facto owner of Rivoli, would surely climb down from
his high horse. He would then be persuaded to arrange all the paperwork, file applications and
shepherd them through the corridors of power.
“What about our money? Who's going to pay the penalty and the fees?” Mr Radhakrishnan
asked belligerently.
“Rivoli will, of course. We will make them pay,” Ajit assured the audience.

Villa # 300, Palm Meadows 2, Airport – Whitefield Road, Bangalore 560 066, India.
Tel: +91-80-2539 2300; +91-98450 58034 (M); e-mail: vn@vnbhattacharya.com
Website: http://www.vnbhattacharya.com
V.N. Bhattacharya

The deliberations went on for nearly two hours. In the end they all agreed on a dharna,
invitations to the press and slogan shouting.

A few residents and members of the Association had pointed to the dangers of precipitate
action. It could invite repercussions from the builder. They warned that he could file cases
against participants for libel. He could do much worse, too. Some builders, they said, were not
the most law-abiding citizens. If word of the dharna reached the builder in advance, he could
arrange goondas to beat them up. Even if he did not attempt anything criminal, he could
become unbending in his future relationship with the Association. Maintenance of the building
was being done by him. If he withdrew those services, it could cause all residents considerable
inconvenience.

The majority, however, was in no mood for the soft touch. It was resolved that the residents
would go ahead with the dharna on the following Monday.

²²²

Questions:

Will the dharna succeed in persuading the Builder to get the residents’ properties regularized at
his (builder’s) cost? Why do you feel so? If you feel this is unlikely, state your reasons.
Specifically, please mull over the following questions.

1. What is the principal objective of residents? What do they wish to achieve?

2. What are the top 2-3 assumptions behind their strategy?
3. What possible objectives might the builder have?
4. What key assumptions might drive the builder’s strategy?
5. What options of action are available to the builder?
6. Is Press an independent actor? Independent does not mean fair or honest. It simply means
whether they decide based on self-interest.
7. Do they have own objectives and strategies?
8. Can their strategies impact residents’ plans? How?
9. Will residents achieve their objective?

This case is purely fictitious.

© V.N. Bhattacharya, September 2008