By IANS
AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday pulled up the Morbi civic body for not being represented by an official despite a court notice being served and raised a question on the contract awarded for the maintenance of the 150-year-old bridge which collapsed on October 30 killing over 140 people.
“Despite being served a notice, Morbi nagar palika is not represented before the court, they are acting smart,” a first bench headed by Chief Justice Arvind Kumar and Justice A.J. Shastri asserted.
The bench had issued notices to the state government and the state human rights commission on November 7 on the October 30 tragedy and sought a status report from the government. The HC said on November 7 that it had taken suo motu (on its own) cognisance of a news report on the bridge collapse tragedy and registered it as a PIL (Public Interest Litigation).
“Why did the state not use its power under Section 263 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act (involves dissolving the municipality)? The municipality has defaulted, which led to an unfortunate incident,” the court said.
The court observed that an MOU had been executed on June 16, 2008 between the Rajkot Collector (Morbi was part of Rajkot district previously) and the Ajanta Group (also called the Oreva group) to operate, maintain, manage, and collect rent in respect of the suspension bridge. This MOU expired in 2017. It asked about what steps were taken to call for expression of interest or float a tender for a further period.
The court also asked on what basis was the bridge permitted to be operated by the Ajanta Group after June 2017, even when the MOU expired and no further agreement was signed after 2017. It further asked whether there had been compliance with Section 65 of the Gujarat Municipal Act.
“Under the MOU of 2008 and the agreement of 2022 was there any condition put for certifying the fitness of the bridge? Who was the responsible person to certify the bridge?” the court asked.
The bench also noted that from June 15, 2017, for a period of 2 years, without an MOU or agreement, the bridge continued to be maintained by the Ajanta Group. “There is correspondence from Ajanta informing the collector that until and unless an agreement is signed they would not commence the work of renovation of the bridge,” it said.
The bench orally observed: “The state took steps that are expected from it but the agreement signed between the Morbi civic body and the private contractor for the bridge renovation is just 1.5 pages long. No tender was invited – why was the contract granted without inviting any tender?”
“The largesse of the state was given to Ajanta Company without any tender being floated?” it noted.
The matter has been posted for Wednesday, where the Morbi civic body is expected to give a detailed explanation.
ALSO READ | No one, on behalf of govt, resigned or apologised after Morbi bridge collapse: P Chidambaram
The court also sought to know the action the state government has taken against Morbi Chief Officer S.V. Zala.
The PIL’s next hearing will take place on November 24.
Police on October 31 arrested nine persons, including four from the Oreva group that was managing the Morbi suspension bridge, and filed a case against firms tasked with the maintenance and operation of the structure.
Morbi-based clock and e-bike maker Oreva group was given a contract by the Morbi Municipality to repair and operate the hanging bridge for 15 years. Probe following the tragedy has pointed to several irregularities in awarding the work contract, the renovation work itself, and the violation of safety protocols after the bridge was reopened to the public last month.
READ HERE | Gujarat assembly polls: Bridge tragedy effect? Candidates skip Morbi campaigning
(With inputs from online desk)
AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday pulled up the Morbi civic body for not being represented by an official despite a court notice being served and raised a question on the contract awarded for the maintenance of the 150-year-old bridge which collapsed on October 30 killing over 140 people.
“Despite being served a notice, Morbi nagar palika is not represented before the court, they are acting smart,” a first bench headed by Chief Justice Arvind Kumar and Justice A.J. Shastri asserted.
The bench had issued notices to the state government and the state human rights commission on November 7 on the October 30 tragedy and sought a status report from the government. The HC said on November 7 that it had taken suo motu (on its own) cognisance of a news report on the bridge collapse tragedy and registered it as a PIL (Public Interest Litigation).
“Why did the state not use its power under Section 263 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act (involves dissolving the municipality)? The municipality has defaulted, which led to an unfortunate incident,” the court said.
The court observed that an MOU had been executed on June 16, 2008 between the Rajkot Collector (Morbi was part of Rajkot district previously) and the Ajanta Group (also called the Oreva group) to operate, maintain, manage, and collect rent in respect of the suspension bridge. This MOU expired in 2017. It asked about what steps were taken to call for expression of interest or float a tender for a further period.
The court also asked on what basis was the bridge permitted to be operated by the Ajanta Group after June 2017, even when the MOU expired and no further agreement was signed after 2017. It further asked whether there had been compliance with Section 65 of the Gujarat Municipal Act.
“Under the MOU of 2008 and the agreement of 2022 was there any condition put for certifying the fitness of the bridge? Who was the responsible person to certify the bridge?” the court asked.
The bench also noted that from June 15, 2017, for a period of 2 years, without an MOU or agreement, the bridge continued to be maintained by the Ajanta Group. “There is correspondence from Ajanta informing the collector that until and unless an agreement is signed they would not commence the work of renovation of the bridge,” it said.
The bench orally observed: “The state took steps that are expected from it but the agreement signed between the Morbi civic body and the private contractor for the bridge renovation is just 1.5 pages long. No tender was invited – why was the contract granted without inviting any tender?”
“The largesse of the state was given to Ajanta Company without any tender being floated?” it noted.
The matter has been posted for Wednesday, where the Morbi civic body is expected to give a detailed explanation.
ALSO READ | No one, on behalf of govt, resigned or apologised after Morbi bridge collapse: P Chidambaram
The court also sought to know the action the state government has taken against Morbi Chief Officer S.V. Zala.
The PIL’s next hearing will take place on November 24.
Police on October 31 arrested nine persons, including four from the Oreva group that was managing the Morbi suspension bridge, and filed a case against firms tasked with the maintenance and operation of the structure.
Morbi-based clock and e-bike maker Oreva group was given a contract by the Morbi Municipality to repair and operate the hanging bridge for 15 years. Probe following the tragedy has pointed to several irregularities in awarding the work contract, the renovation work itself, and the violation of safety protocols after the bridge was reopened to the public last month.
READ HERE | Gujarat assembly polls: Bridge tragedy effect? Candidates skip Morbi campaigning
(With inputs from online desk)
