Morbi bridge tragedy: Gujarat HC questions MoU with Ajanta-Oreva group

The Gujarat high court on Tuesday criticised the local civic authorities for handing over the contract for the operation, maintenance and repair of the Morbi bridge, which collapsed on October 30 killing 135 people, to private entity – the Ajanta-Oreva Group.

The court pulled up the state government for the manner in which the one-and-a-half-page agreement was signed between the Morbi municipality and Oreva in March this year for the maintenance and repair of the bridge for 15 years.

Chief justice Aravind Kumar asked the respondent, the Gujarat chief secretary, whether there was compliance under section 65 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, and sought a reply within two weeks.

Questioning the largesse of the state for awarding the contract to a private entity without floating a tender or inviting an expression of interest, the court questioned state government authorities for allowing a private entity to operate and collect rent for the bridge even after over two years since their previous contract ended in 2017.

The high court noted how the private entity tried to arm-twist the Morbi collector by writing letters threatening that unless a long-term contract was signed, they will not carry out appropriate repair works on the bridge.

As per section 65 (3) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 a sanction by resolution at a general board meeting is required of a lease for a period exceeding one year.

In his argument, advocate general Kamal Trivedi said an MoU was signed between the Morbi municipality chief Sandeepsinh Zala and Ajanta promoters on March 8, 2022 for the operation, maintenance and repair of the suspension bridge for 15 years, subject to approval from the board.

Also Read: Gujarat election: Kantilal Amrutia, who ‘saved’ lives during Morbi tragedy, gets BJP ticket

Earlier this month, the court took a suo motu cognizance of the Morbi bridge collapse incident, issuing notices to the state home department, urban housing department, the Morbi municipality, and the state human rights commission. The high court has sought a report from the state, within a week, on the accident in Morbi.

Advocate general Trivedi said the bridge was reopened for the public on October 26 by the private entity without informing the authorities about the kind of repair work that was done. Also, there was no independent third-party certificate that was given regarding the structural stability, holding capacity or fitness of the bridge. Oreva gave the fabrication work to Devprakash Solutions.

“There was a huge rush on October 30 due to Diwali festive holidays. There were 3,165 visitors in the entire day. About 300 persons were allowed to enter the bridge from both ends around 6.30 pm and it appears that the bridge would have collapsed as a result of such a large gathering,” Trivedi said. He said that while 135 lives were lost, 170 survived after rescue operations were carried out by the government. One survivor is undergoing medical treatment at a hospital in Rajkot, according to Trivedi.

As per the MoU, a ticket fee of ₹15 and ₹10 (for adults and children, respectively) to ₹17 and ₹12 was fixed for the first year.

Trivedi told the court that prior to the signing of the MoU, the bridge was maintained and operated by the same group for nine years till 2017.

“On what basis was the bridge permitted to be operated by Ajanta after June 15, 2017 though earlier MoU was not renewed?” said Justice Kumar.

The court also asked the government if the agreements in 2008 or 2022 had a clause where a certification of the bridge being fit for usage was to be obtained, and if so, who is the competent authority required to certify the same.