Gujarat High Court on Tuesday slammed the state government for its inaction against the Morbi civic body over lapses that led to the October 30 Morbi Bridge tragedy resulting in the deaths of 135. The high court also took exception that the Morbi municipal body were 'acting smart' and not showing up in court despite being served a notice.
"The municipality, a government body, has defaulted which ultimately killed 135 people," the high court said.
Chief Justice Aravind Kumar noted in disbursing compensation to the victims and survivors, the state government took "reasonable steps" in the aftermath of the bridge collapse; however, it is the state's conduct prior to the tragedy.
BOOM recaps the hearing from earlier today.
No agreement for bridge repairs?
The Gujarat High Court observed that there was no 'agreement' between the Morbi civic body and the private contractors engaged for the bridge maintenance. "It is not even an agreement, it is an understanding," the bench observed after perusing the 1.5 page 'contract'.
The Oreva Group—best known for their brand Ajanta (wall clocks)—was hired to maintain the 150-year-old Morbi bridge. The high court however pointed out several inconsistencies and irregularities in the 'contracts'.
"[look at] Largesse of the state…for more than 10 years there was no tender floated (for bridge maintenance), the judge noted. "Even after the term of the contractor ended on June 15, 2016, why was no tender floated by the state or Morbi civic body?" CJ Kumar asked.
In fact, the same contractor has arm twisted your collector saying unless and until the civic body did not renew the agreement, no permanent repairs would be undertaken on the bridge, he added.
Highlighting state government lapses over bridge upkeep, the judge further pointed out that nothing has been done for more than 10 years.
Why has the state not superseded the municipality? What action has been taken against the suspended civic officials? the high court said.
In conclusion of the day's hearing, the high court also asked the government if it could provide jobs on compassionate grounds to family members of those who died in the tragedy and were sole bread earners.