HC pulls up Morbi civic body for ‘collusion’ with contractor

During the hearing, the bench noted that the civic body’s affidavit indicated that the contractor was allowed to reopen the bridge without any approval from either the civic body or the state government.

There appeared to have been collusion between the municipal authorities in Gujarat’s Morbi town and the company that was in charge of maintaining a colonial-era suspension bridge that collapsed in October, the Gujarat high court said on Wednesday as it pulled up the civic body for not taking action against the contractor when the bridge was reopened without permission.

The court was hearing a suo motu (on its own) petition on the collapse of the suspension bridge that claimed 135 lives on October 30 last year. (PTI)

A bench of chief justice Aravind Kumar and justice Ashutosh Shastri said the civic body, being an instrumentality of the state, had ample power and law in its hand to take the bridge back if the contractor was not listening to them, as claimed in the municipality’s affidavit.

The court was hearing a suo motu (on its own) petition on the collapse of the suspension bridge that claimed 135 lives on October 30 last year.

During the hearing, the bench noted that the civic body’s affidavit indicated that the contractor was allowed to reopen the bridge without any approval from either the civic body or the state government.

“It would also emerge from the said affidavit that the agreement of March 8, 2022 was not formally approved by the general body of the municipality,” observed the bench.

As the counsel for the civic body, additional solicitor general Devang Vyas submitted that the contractor opened the bridge without informing the authorities, the court remarked, “But what were you doing then? You are an instrumentality of the State. You have ample law and power. You just kept quiet and did nothing. An inference can be drawn, subject to what you say further, but it appears there was collusion between you two.”

ASG Vyas told the court that they asked the contractor to handover the bridge. However, this did not go down well with the court, which shot back, “But isn’t this your own bridge? Why didn’t you take over it? Why to ask?”

The counsel told the court that the contractor wrote to the civic body in January 2021, informing that it had carried out temporary repairs and needed around ₹1.50 crore, while also agreeing to execute the agreement (MoU) on conditions.

The bench said, “Look at their tenor. The contractor was threatening you and you did nothing despite being a powerful authority. And now you are saying government shouldn’t dissolve you. The MoU was also not approved by the general board. What is this?” OnDecember 21, 2022, the Gujarat government issued a notice to the municipality, asking it to show reasons why it shouldn’t be dissolved.

The counsel told the court that the bridge was shut from March 8 till October 26, 2022 but it was opened without prior approval.

“Negotiations were going on between us. No independent certificate was provided by the contractor regarding the condition of the bridge,” the counsel submitted.

To this, the court responded, “If all this is so, what were you doing?”

The British-era suspension bridge over the Machchuu River reopened on October 26, on Gujarati new year, after being shut for nearly six months for repairs. The bridge was crammed with people when it caved in around 6.40pm on October 30, killing 135 people.

Senior counsel ND Nanavaty, representing the Ajanta Oreva group, told the court they are ready to take responsibility of the seven children orphaned in the bridge collapse, adding that the company is willing to compensate those who got injured, and the kin of the deceased.

“This is not adversarial. Some mistake has been made by the company and some by the civic body. But we are ready to pay the compensation as the court directs,” the counsel said.

Though the court agreed to this proposal, it clarified that paying compensation will not save the company from the action taken by the state authorities.

“Okay, so you go and pay the compensations first. But let us be very clear, by paying this, it won’t save you. It won’t mean that the State won’t take any action as per law. You will have to face the consequences as per law,” the bench said.

The counsel responded: “I know what the collector, State etc have done. They all cannot now pass the buck to me. If they do so then, I will have to speak out. My only concern was to ensure the heritage bridge is operated properly.”

He also claimed that some “highly placed influential persons” persuaded them to look after the heritage bridge and it was not taken over for profit.

As the counsel sought to know the amount of compensation to be paid, the court asked him to calculate it in terms of the compensation given during motor vehicle accidents.

The court clarified the contractor will have to disperse the amounts to the state, which would further pay it to the victims, while asking the amicus curiae to assist in ascertaining the amount.

Gujarat’s advocate general Kamal Trivedi, appearing for the state government, told the court that there are 63 bridges across the state and around 40 bridges require minor repairs, while 23 need major repairs.

He further told the court that the repair work of 27 bridges was already completed and that for the remaining 36 bridges was underway.

The court directed the state government to produce details of the repairs carried out on 63 bridges.

“We hope that the major repairs needed on 23 bridges is attended immediately and all precautions to be taken on war footing to avoid any kind of untoward incidents. The State to spell the details of steps taken in this regard on an affidavit to be filed on next date,” the court said.

The matter would be heard on February 20.