Morbi Bridge Collapse: Gujarat HC questions state’s ‘largesse’ to Oreva

Ahmedabad: Even as the ruling BJP and the opposition parties are preoccupied with the sound and fury of the elections early next month, the Gujarat High Court on Tuesday tore apart the BJP-ruled Morbi Municipality for the October 30 pedestrian bridge collapse that claimed 135 lives.  Chief Justice Aravind Kumar, who has initiated a suo moto petition in the devastating tragedy, asserted, “The municipality, a government body, has defaulted, which ultimately killed 135 people. ” Livid over the Morbi Municipality simply ignoring the high court notice was not represented, an angry court remarked, “They are acting smart.

” Gujarat Morbi tragedy: HC slaps notices to BJP Govt, State human rights panel Court slams Morbi MunicipalityBlasting Gujarat Chief Secretary Pankaj Kumar over the award of a maintenance contract of the 150-year-old heritage bridge to a private firm, a high court bench asserted, “The largesse of the state seems to have been granted without there being any tender floated in this regard. ” “Why was the tender for the repair work of a public bridge not floated? Why weren’t bids invited?” Chief Justice Aravind Kumar asked the State’s topmost bureaucrat, and posted the hearing for Wednesday.  The Morbi Municipality had awarded the 15-year contract to Oreva Group, which is best known for the Ajanta brand of wall clocks, on a platter without inviting any bids while the firm is not qualified to handle this work.

 The Chief Justice wondered, “How was an agreement for such an important work completed in just one and a half pages? Was the largesse of the state given to Ajanta company without any tender being floated?” More startling, the high court was surprised that the company continued to operate the bridge after June 2017 though its contract signed in 2008 was not even renewed. A new agreement was signed as late as this year. Six departments asked to hand in reportThe court had taken note of the tragedy on its own and sought replies from at least six departments.

Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J Shastri are hearing the matter. The court has also asked the officials to return with details on whether any condition for certifying fitness of the bridge before its reopening was part of the agreement, and who the person responsible was. “The state shall also place on record reasons why disciplinary proceedings against the chief officer of the civic body aren’t commenced,” it said.

It is known that nobody from the top management of the firm, which signed the ₹ 7-crore pact, has not been arrested or called to account for the tragedy. The court asked for files of the contract from the first day to be submitted in a sealed envelope.  Clarifications on contractThe high court directed the Principal District Judge of Morbi to appoint a bailiff to a notice to the civic body.

It noted that, though the state has filed an affidavit, some clarifications were needed about the contract. “The list of chronological events would indicate that MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) was signed on June 16, 2008, between the Collector and the contractor,” it noted.  “This [contract] was to operate, maintain, manage and collect rent in respect of the suspension bridge.

The said period expired on June 15, 2017. Thus, the moot question would be: Under this MoU, who had been given the responsibility to certify the fitness of the bridge. .

. After the term was over in 2017, what steps were taken by the Morbi civic body and the Collector thereafter to float a tender?” the court said. Morbi Bridge tragedy: Civic head suspended.