E-Paper
Morbi contractor lacked expertise, police tell court
The presence of about 400 people on it, the lack of expertise of the company that held the contract for its management, renovation and operation, and inadequate qualifications of the firm that repaired it, may have led to the collapse of a heritage bridge in Gujarat’s Morbi town, according to police officers and remand papers submitted in court.
The presence of about 400 people on it, the lack of expertise of the company that held the contract for its management, renovation and operation, and inadequate qualifications of the firm that repaired it, may have led to the collapse of a heritage bridge in Gujarat’s Morbi town, according to police officers and remand papers submitted in court.
Police questioned the chief officer of the municipality, Sandipsinh Jhala, for about two hours and received from him several documents related to the contracts signed between the government authorities and the firms, said a senior officer aware of developments.
The city’s superintendent of police, Rahul Tripathi, said “overcrowding and overloading” and “lapses in renovation” were two of the main reasons for the tragedy on October 30 that claimed 135 lives.
“More than 400 tickets were sold that evening. This number is not for the entire day. It was for a particular period,” said Tripathi. He added that no phone calls were made to the police about crowding at the site. “These things are handled by the private company as per the memorandum of understanding. If the crowd was unmanageable, they should have informed us,” he added.
Built in 1879, the suspension bridge spanning the Machchu river abruptly crumbled on Sunday evening, plunging scores of people to their deaths. Police arrested nine people and the government constituted a special investigation team but questions swirl over whether too many people were allowed to climb onto the jhulta pul (swinging bridge), if the authorities ensured adequate safety certification and whether renovation work finished four days before the tragedy was requisite.
Police have arrested nine people in connection with the accident. Late on Tuesday, a Morbi court sent four men who represented Oreva Group and Devprakash Fabrications to four days in police custody. Five other people – including two ticket clerks and three security guards — were arrested by the police and sent to jail.
The court’s order quoted the police as saying that the four people — Deepakbhai Parekh and Dineshbhai Dave of Oreva Group, which signed an MoU with the municipality in March to renovate and maintain the bridge, and Prakashbhai Lalaji Parmar and Devangbhai Parmar, contractors of Devprakash Fabrications that carried out the actual renovation work — did not have expertise or qualification in respect of renovation of bridges.
It further said that initial forensic reports suggested poor quality work by the company awarded the contract. HT has seen a copy of both the police’s remand report, and the court’s remand order.
“One of the two managers of Oreva company told the court that it was an ‘Act of God’,” said additional public prosecutor HS Panchal.
Gujarat observed a statewide mourning on Wednesday, with flags flown at half mast, and no official or entertainment events allowed. This decision was taken at a high-level meeting chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi when he visited Morbi on Tuesday and called for an inquiry.
In their remand report submitted to the court on Tuesday, Gujarat Police said that the four men mentioned above were not cooperating.
“The accused have tried to protect the other accused in the case, and have given little information. They have not been able to furnish proof of fitness to carry out the work, which needs to be investigated,” the remand report said.
The report said the bridge was constructed on “two solid cables”, the maintenance of which was the responsibility of the Oreva Group but added that there was no structural audit. “In the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, the Investigating Officer (IO) said that the cable was rusting away. The investigating officer says that only the flooring of the bridge was done and the cables were not changed and oiling-greasing also wasn’t done. In the report, the IO stated that the tender process did not take place and the contract was directly allotted,” Panchal said.
The report also said that in 2007, the renovation of the bridge and its floor was carried out by Devprakash Fabrications. “In March 2022, they started the re-strengthening of the bridge, which the Oreva group again gave to accused number 3. In custody, the accused are not revealing how Devprakash Fabrication was given this work, when this firm does not have technical expertise,” the report added.
The report called for a detailed investigation into whether written orders of restoration work were given to the two contractors. “The bridge was opened to the public on October 26, and whether before this was done, whether any government permission had been sought. Whether there was a fitness certificate and whether there was an expert agency that examined the bridge,” it added.
In response, the court said the police stated in its first information report that the “proximate cause for the collapse of the bridge as negligence in maintenance and management of the bridge along with poor workmanship.” The court also recorded advocate Gopi K Raval, who represented the accused, as saying that the four men had no major role to play in the offence and were mid-level employees of the company.
Police continued to battle allegations of going soft on the managing director of the Oreva Group, Jaysukhbhai Patel, who inaugurated the bridge on October 26 and had said that the renovation would last eight to 10 years. Asked why Patel was not arrested so far, Tripathi defended the police action.
“We have not named anyone in the FIR and it is not as if we named someone and omitted someone else’s name. We have to fix criminal liability from the bottom to the top. This is a step-wise process and has to be based on evidence,” he added.
