With the publication of this post and ending of the year 2013, we close the chapter which began five years ago; on 24th, October, 2008 to be precise. The Collection box, at the HOLY CROSS, Kharodi; was STOLEN BY ROGUES WHO WERE PAMPERED BY PARISH AUTHORITY. Our efforts to bring them to book, revealed, how the Parish Authority and hierarchy is hellbent on protecting such rogues. This is a true revelation from this episode.

We credit the Birth of SILENT VOICE, Voice of a Silent Majority, to this incident.




These words, we as Catholics repeat daily, at number of times; expressing our faith in the Christian VALUE, which has emerged, along with the



is a Value, which Christian Faith is based on.

Therefore any kind of Manipulation, Subversion of TRUTH, in any form, could not be acceptable to a true Christian.







This is a delayed post; in respect to Archdiocese Enquiry Commission (AEC), related to St. Anthony’s Parish; Malwani. You may remember, Fr. Ajit Bandekar, the then Parish Priest of St. Anthony’s Church, Malwani, was unilaterally Declared Guilty by us, because the Archbishop House was silent on the issue, in spite of the Enquiry having concluded, a long time ago.


The Enquiry Commission thereafter, hurriedly summoned yours truly, who was a complainant and through Archbishop Cardinal Oswald Gracias, handed over the FINDINGS OF THE ARCHDIOCESAN ENQUIRY COMMISSION. It is needless to say that the accused Fr. Ajit Bandekar was expectedly, found NOT GUILTY.

The matter was put behind by us. But the expected mischief compelled us to respond, which we did in apt manner as the title suggests; through a letter addressed to H. E. Cardinal Oswald Gracias. Please read it and understand as to how some members of Clergy, without any FEAR OF GOD, behave. Thanks to His Eminence, with whose intervention the copies of the findings were handed over to us.

Though Fr. Ajit Bandekar was declared NOT GUILTY, officially; his transfer prior to the tenure reveals fact.

Just for your information, the members on the Panel were: 1. Fr. Michael Goveas, Parish Priest, St. Andrews Church, Bandra; 2. Fr. Savio Fernandes, Chancellor of Archdiocese, Bombay( Now a Bishop); and Fr. Seraj Pinto, Parish Priest, St. Anthony’s Church, Vakola.

Fr. Austin Norris, who replaced Fr. Ajit Bandekar, has been doing excellent job being transparent with issues. However, the rogue elements, nurtured by his predecessor are still to be seen in the wings of Parish. Will Fr. Austin purge them? It remains to be seen…..


St. Anthony's Church Malwani




Constuted UnderPara 29 of Christifideles Laici

(Post Synodal ApostolicExhortation ofH. H.Late Pope John Paul II)

A/7, Rodrigues Compound, Malwani Village, Malad(W), Mumbai,400095. Contact no. 98707 19628.

E Mail:

10th, September, 2012;


Most Rev. Cardinal Oswald Gracias,

Archbishop of Bombay;

Sub:    Archdiocesan Enquiry Commission (AEC), a Farce.

Your Eminence,

This is with reference to our meeting on June, 2nd, 2012, where you handed over the order related to subject matter. As we have mentioned in our letter of 12th, May, 2012 that your verdict will be accepted, whatever form it is in; however, a conclusion by AEC panel has compelled us to rethink and respond. Delay in our response, is due to anxiety of expected Legal Notice or a Court Summons, from Church/Parish Authorities, for following reason. Usurping a Trust property and helping the usurper to do so, is a seriously punishable crime under Indian Constitution, which as per the order of AEC, we have committed. Besides, we also expected this verdict to be made public by Church authorities to counter the one by us, PRONOUNCING FR. AJIT BANDEKAR, FORMER PARISH PRIEST OF ST. ANTHONY’S CHURCH, GUILTY OF CORRUPT PRACTICES.

Your eminence, nothing of the kind mention above has occurred, obviously because the Church authorities in their wisdom are aware that the order is not based on TRUTH. An example to AEC’s misdemeanor is here for everyone to see.

Conclusion By AEC:       Even his allegations that Mr. Karveer paid some money to Mr. Fredrick Gracias in order to allow him to resurface the road on the plot bearing CTS No. 1668/1688 has fallen flat. Rather, the evidence on hand shows that Mr. Greg Pereira is the one who is close to Mr. Karveer and has helped him in getting some of the Church plots for development, as mentioned by Mr. Karveer himself.

Here, your Eminence, Mr. Karveer has accepted that he has developed some Church Plots. Surely, he must have also given the list of Church Plots that he has developed with our help (Greg Pereira). He also must have submitted evidence of our involvement in the matter. However, it doesn’t find any place in the Findings, obviously, because it does not exist. The only evidence they have is what Mr. Karveer has said.

In this matter, AEC panel has deliberately ignored following statements of Mr. Jerry Rodrigues, who is also a Eucharistic Minister and a revered parishioner.

  • He (Mr. Karveer) does not know Greg Pereira too well: -:     In fact, I had never spoken to him before this meeting. I was called by him through Jerry Rodrigues, in anticipation that I would be able to reign in Fredrick Gracias and Godfrey Patel, who were demanding more and more from him. At this point in time I told him that he is an encroacher on Church Property and he has to vacate. : GREG
  • Mr. Sunil Karveer told me that Fredrick and Godfrey have been asking him money for the Access passage (Road)”. Jerry Rodrigues reiterated this statement, when he was told that, Sunil Karveer has denied it. (Deposition of Jerry Rodrigues, Page 24 & 25)
  • Greg Pereira and Ravindra Patil were sitting with me when Mr. Karveer told me about this.

Besides, both Godfrey Patel and Fredrick Gracias have stated in their depositions that they have been receiving donations from Sunil Karveer for some Cricket and Football Matches. Sunil Karveer also corroborates this, which may please be noted. Because they have not given details of the matches they organized??????????

Your Eminence, this is enough evidence to conclude that AEC Verdict is tapered to bail out the accused. However, in their enthusiasm they have also bailed out the corrupt elements operating in Parish for their personal gains.

Going through the entire document, it becomes obvious that AEC has tried to twist the TRUTH around technicalities, to taper the judgment in favour of accused. Besides, implicating the complainant into similar corruption is a ploy always used by politicians, to divert attention from the main issue. AEC has used the similar ploy to defend the corrupt one among them. This is not a first case your Eminence; a lady Parishioner from OL OF SALVATION PARISH, DADAR; was similarly accused of fraud, just because she raised the issue of Corruption, related to Properties, by Parish authorities. She fought tooth and nail for eight years, to get her name cleared. A media report recently, suggests that you have found her innocent.

We are not casting aspersions on the character of entire team of AEC. But it is well known that Fr. Savio Fernandes, Chancellor of Archdiocese; is a staunch defender of Corruption within Church Administration. He has made a valiant attempt to counter allegation of Corruption within Church, (On Corruption & Transparency; Examiner, 25th, July 2011) that appeared in the Examiner of April, 2011; under the title, THE CHURCH NEEDS AN ANNA HAZARE.

We are not surprised with this verdict. It was obvious from the inception of this matter that Church authorities are not interested in curbing corruption within Parishes. Bishop Percival gives clean chit to Fr. Ajit Bandekar, via his letter of February 20, 2010; without even discussing the matter with the complainants.

 Extracts: “I have carefully studied all that you have placed before me, and find that Fr. Ajit Bandekar has done well. I find no reason to blame him in any way in matter related to what you have written to me”. “As a person interested in the good of the Church, may I kindly request you, dear Greg, to meet Fr. Ajit personally, and have a dialogue with him. He is an excellent priest and respected by all those who have worked with him. I am confident that this dialogue will help you to understand the outstanding qualities of this Priest of ours”! (VOSM PG. 8).

Fr. Salvadore Rodrigues, declined to officiate on AEC, after we raised objection to his presence, stating that as a Dean, he had looked into the matter. (Your letter dated 14th, May 2011).

What did he find? Not known.

Your Eminence, Now that we have chosen to respond, let us authenticate further our claim with more evidence.

The matter related to theft of Collection box:

Here, AEC has done its best to bail out the accused Mr. Fredrick Gracias, by twisting and eliminating certain uncomfortable points from the depositions. Would like you to note the following and decide for yourself.

Deposition by Greg Pereira:

  • Findings…..:  Mr. Greg Pereira states in his deposition, “It has been a practice of keeping the collection box of Asmita Jyoti Cross on Fridays, at Mr. Robert Gracias’ place with the approval of the Parish Priest since the collection box is removed at 12 midnight”. (The following morning it used to be handed over to Fr. Ajit Bandekar).

Deposition by Godfrey Patel. (Pg. 13 & 14).

Vittur and Greg used to take the collection box to Robert’s Place; (This statement is missing from the Findings……)

v  Greg and Vittur arriverd on the scene.

v  Vittur wanted to keep the box at Roberts place and he (Fredrick Gracias) told him, “let it be here in my shop for tonight and will take it to Church in the morning”.

Statement by GREG, in Publication ACTS: This has been explained earlier. Godfrey repeats the version of Fredrick. “Let the box be here in my shop for tonight and I will take it to Church in the morning”. This has been countered in the deposition of Fredrick. I wish to add over here. I suspect their intention, since Roberts house is just few meters away from this spot. This will give an indication, as to why we were trying to keep both of them away. This was brought to the notice of Fr. Ajit Bandekar, time and again. He did nothing about it. This implies that he is shielding these rogue elements. (This statement has been ignored by AEC)

Deposition by Fredrick Gracias:

  • “For the first time the collection box was kept in my shop. I then told Fr. Ajit that I did not want to keep the box in my shop”.
  • On being questioned by victor (Vittur), as to why the box was being kept at the shop? I told him, “let it be here tonight and I will give it to Fr. Ajit the following morning”.
  • AEC question to Fredrick Gracias:  Did Fr Ajit give you any instruction, at anytime, to keep the box at your place?  He answered, “No”. (This statement is missing from the Findings……)

Publication ACTS by GREG, in response to Fredrick Gracias: If he had told Fr, Ajit Bandekar that he did not want to keep the box in his place, why did he take the box in his shop?

The idea of keeping the box in Chapel was shot down by me, because it is not safe. I was prepared to carry it to the Church. However, it was decided to keep it at Robert’s place.  Fr, Ajit Bandekar, am sure will vouch for this.

It has already been stated in my reply to Fr, Ajit Bandekar’s deposition that Vittur and I did come, before the box could be transported. Therefore it was no reason for them to take the box. We did not want to allow them, because there was no such instruction from Fr, Ajit Bandekar.” On being questioned as to why………………….. I will give it to Fr. Ajit the following morning”. To me this statement doesn’t make any sense. If it does to you, please let me know, how? In fact, there was no conversation between them. Fredrick just took the box away before Vittur could realize. So says Vittur in his statement. (This statement has been ignored by AEC)

Deposition by Vittue Rodrigues:

  • When the Rickshaw stopped at Kharodi, Fredrick took the box and ran into the gully. The rickshaw driver asked me whether I should complain to the police. I told him, how to complain to police when it is a church matter. (This statement is missing from the Findings……..).

AEC has stated that Greg Pereira and Vittur Rodrigues are not truthful.  You decide your Eminence, who is truthful.


Manipulation of terms for mandaps for Holy Week services 2009.

The lowest tender was rejected because it was not in proper format:

Deposition by Godfrey Patel. (Pg. 13 & 14).

“Since this was not the proper format of giving the quotation as per the law, the Committee decided to reject the quotation”.

Fredrick Gracias has also expressed similar views.

Statement by GREG, in Publication ACTS:  If the property committee is so particular about everything that has been written; then the quotation of Nityanand Decorator, who was awarded the contract, should have been rejected outright; for the following reasons.

  • If I remember well.  Quotation of Nityanand decorator carries multiple dates. 9/4/2009, 10/4/2009, and 11/4/2009. Is it permitted in any document? (AEC has explained, these are the dates specifying Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Yes AEC is right. Then where is the date of the Tender?) Of course, AEC has taken pains to mention, “This quotation is not dated”, in bold.
  • There is variation between the amount mentioned in figures, which reads as Rs. 100001/- and amount mentioned in words, which reads “Rs. One lakh one thousand only”. Besides, the figure seems to be overwritten; you may draw your conclusion. I can say with conviction that this quotation is an afterthought to counter the allegations. Can Fr. Ajit Bandekar deny it? Again, what is the role of finance committee in this matter? (AEC on variation in amount in Figures and Words: “This appears to be mistake on part of Proprietor”.)????? However, AEC is silent on the issue of overwriting of the amount in figures.

Mismanagement and neglect of Church Properties deliberately, amounting to dereliction of duties:

Exhibit L: Page 77 to 79: This letter, signed by members of Property Committee; 1). Fr. Ajit Bandekar, 2). Harold Miranda, 3), Godfrey Patel, 4) Patric D’souza, 5) Fredric Gracias, 6) Esbin Baptista, speaks about various properties and their efforts in protecting them.  It also says that “NO PLOT HAS BEEN SOLD BY US TO ANY PARTY, irrespective of claims made by various unscrupulous elements.”

Isn’t it great that Church Properties are safely protected by these members? If only Fr. Austin Norris, the present Parish Priest, could explain to Parishioners the actual status of these properties, we shall withdraw our allegations.( The list of properties, belonging to the Parish was sent to you vide Letter, dated 22nd, February, 2012).

Meanwhile, Mr. Sunil Karveer has already accepted that he has developed some Church Plots. How did he do that?

Besides, would like to know the status of following properties.

Extracts from Publication ACTS, related to Plots bearing CTS nos. 3173/2305.

To Fr. Ajit Bandekar’s Deposition:  I wish to draw your attention to the letter, dated 1st, December, 2010, in relation to plot nos. 3173 and 2305. It is submitted to you as an Exhibit. I do not remember its reference. Copy of this letter was marked and handed over to Fr. Ajit Bandekar, with instructions to interact with BMC and the police, to whom the copy was marked. At this point the land filling had just begun. Yet they seem to have done nothing.  These are the plots about which I have mentioned in the letter dated 2nd, May, 2011, to Fr. Ajit Bandekar and submitted to you during my deposition, in which mention is made about Rs. 30lakhs, changing hands. As I perceive, the members have conceded the plot to encroachers. I stand by my statement of modus operandi by property committee members, having applied in this case. (Modus Operandi is to encourage encroachments before getting into clandestine deals.)

To Godfrey Patel’s Deposition:          As regards to Cheques given by one Mr. Godwin Baretto, One cannot just come and give you the cheques unless there is some discussion about the property. Has the clandestine deal failed because he issued cheques instead of Cash?  This gives credence to my statement about Rs. 30 Lakh being collected by some members of the church. Has the deal gone through clandestinely, with him or some other party? Please remember, the plots were untouched by encroachers till recently, though a lot of slums have come up around it. It is because, the plots belonged to Church.

Now that Mr. Karveer has accepted on record that he has developed some Church Plots, with whose support is debatable; which means that he is an encroacher. Will the Parish authorities take cognizance and initiate process to recover these properties? By now the process should have started, we hope. Through the copy of this letter we seek answer from Parish Priest, Fr. Austin Norris. We take this opportunity to mention that since his taking over as PP, Fr. Austin has initiated some very good changes, which are appreciated by Parishioners. We personally congratulated him for this and assured our support. We are sure; he will initiate a process to cleanse the Parish administration of corrupt elements.

Your eminence, we term the effort of AEC as, COLLECTIVE SUBVERTION OF TRUTH. Do you approve their efforts? Only your actions shall speak. Meanwhile, we stand by our decision of GUILTY VERDICT, against the accused Fr. Ajit Bandekar, Former Parish Priest of St. Anthony’s Church, Malwani; conveyed to you through the letter dated 12th May 2012.

Your Eminence, this EXPOSE of biased attitude of AEC, would have not been possible, if you had not intervened to get us the copy of findings of the Archdiocesan Enquiry Committee, With regards to St. Anthony’s Church Malwani; which Fr. Savio Fernandes, the Chancellor of Archdiocese and member of AEC were reluctant to give. I was not given the copies of depositions too, to prepare presentation of PUBLICATION ACTS, and was made to copy them manually, spending two days. The matter would have gone into oblivion, with corrupt ones escaping and the TRUTH being a casualty at the hands of corrupt elements within Church Administration.







Copy to:       Fr. Austin Norris, Parish Priest: St. Anthony’s Church, Malwani :  Dear Fr. Austin, as we have already mentioned to you, We shall be meeting you to discuss these matters. We hope you will not think of our actions, AGAINST THE INTEREST OF PARISH. If it is so, without malice, you may decline to discuss them with us. We will get in touch with you shortly.

Date: Thursday, 3 November 2011 8:45 AM

Dear Fr. Michael,

I have waited patiently, though i am not convinced with your reply. It is ambiguous, and suspicion has started creeping into my mind. Your statement, “We will let you know, when the time comes”; I believe, has troubled me. I hope, the attempts are not being made do derail the INQUIRY, and brush it under the carpet, as the perception among the Lay people is.





  1. January 2, 2014 at 6:01 pm

    Reblogged this on The Iniquitous Church Crimes.


  2. February 18, 2014 at 4:15 pm

    […] They concealed FACTS to hide the TRUTH; we reveal FACTS to EXPOSE THEIR LIES: SUBVERTER OF TRUTH, EL… […]


%d bloggers like this: