HC asks why contract for Morbi bridge was given without tender
AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat high court on Tuesday questioned why no bids were opened and criticised the way in which the contract was handed out for the operation, maintenance and repair of the ill-fated Morbi bridge, which collapsed on October 30 killing 135 people, and pulled up the local civic agency, which appeared to avoid the court’s calls for a response.
The court also pulled up the government for the manner in which the one-and-a-half page agreement was signed between the Morbi municipality and the Ajanta-oreva group in March this year to repair and maintain the bridge for 15 years. The court has asked the government to file its reply in two weeks’ time.
“It was only a one-and-a-quarter page agreement, absolutely without any condition. There is nothing in it. This is by way of understanding,” chief justice Aravind Kumar said.
“The largesse of the state seems to have been granted without there being any tender floated in this regard,” he added.
The Morbi municipality did not receive the high court’s notice and did not respond to the public interest litigation, prompting the chief justice to remark: “They are trying to act smart.”
AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat high court on Tuesday questioned why no bids were opened and criticised the way in which the contract was handed out for the operation, maintenance and repair of the ill-fated Morbi bridge, which collapsed on October 30 killing 135 people, and pulled up the local civic agency, which appeared to avoid the court’s calls for a response.
The court also pulled up the government for the manner in which a one-and-a-half page agreement was signed between Morbi municipality and the Ajanta-oreva group in March to repair and maintain the bridge for 15 years, suggesting protocols may have been violated.
Chief Justice Aravind Kumar asked the respondent, the Gujarat chief secretary, whether there was compliance of conditions stipulated under Section 65 of Gujarat Municipalities Act, which lays down that any lease stretching for over a year must be sanctioned by a resolution of the municipality’s general board.
The court asked the government to file a reply in two weeks.
“It was only a one-and-a-quarter page agreement... without any condition. There is nothing in it. This is by way of understanding,” justice Kumar said.
“The largesse of the state seems to have been granted without there being any tender floated in this regard,” he added.
The Morbi municipality did not receive the HC’S notice and did not respond to the public interest litigation (PIL), prompting the chief justice to remark: “They are trying to act smart.”
Justice Kumar then ordered the Morbi district judge to send a bailiff to serve the notice by 4.30pm on Tuesday and sought a reply and documents related to the bridge by Wednesday. Questioning what they referred to as “the largesse of the state” in awarding the contract to a private entity without floating a tender or inviting an expression of interest, the court questioned government authorities on why they allowed a private entity to operate and collect rent for more than two years despite a past contract for nine years having run out in 2017.
The court also noted a set of correspondence that suggested the company attempted to armtwist the Morbi collector, threatening to abort repair work unless a long-term contract was signed.
Earlier this month, the court took suo motu cognizance of the bridge collapse, issuing a notice to government officials, including the Home department and Urban Housing department, and 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.
Till now, nine people have been arrested, including four from the company.
The state’s advocate general Kamal Trivedi said an MOU was signed between Morbi municipality chief Sandeepsinh Zala and Ajanta promoters on March 8, 2022 to operate, maintain and repair the bridge for a period of fifteen years. But, Trivedi said, the bridge was re-opened to public on October 26 by the private company without informing the authority about the kind of repair work done. There was no independent third-party certificate given regarding structural stability, holding capacity or fitness of the bridge, he said.