Suspension bridge collapses in Morbi.
Credit: PTI Photo
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court has refused to hand over the investigation into the 2022 Morbi bridge collapse tragedy to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as sought by the kin of the victims.
The court cannot look into the correctness of the ongoing investigation, said a division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi.
The court was hearing a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) initiated after the October 30, 2022, incident at Morbi in Gujarat in which 135 persons lost their lives when a British-era suspension bridge on the Machchhu river collapsed.
Some of the victims and kin of the deceased sought reinvestigation of the entire case through the CBI, accusing Gujarat Police of not carrying out a proper investigation and not making any civic official accused despite a Special Investigation Team holding some of them responsible.
In a separate application submitted last month seeking a CBI probe, the victims argued that the then district collector was present at all the meetings related to the awarding of the contract to Oreva Group for the maintenance of the bridge, but his statement was never recorded.
During Thursday's hearing, advocate Rahul Sharma, appearing for the victims, sought to add murder charges to the main FIR.
Advocate General Kamal Trivedi informed the bench that a chargesheet was filed last year and the then chief officer of Morbi Nagarpalika, who stands suspended, is facing a disciplinary inquiry.
When Sharma pressed for reinvestigation, the chief justice said ordering reinvestigation was beyond the scope of this PIL.
"The chargesheet has already been filed. That can not be challenged through a PIL. For that, you need to approach the concerned sessions court dealing with the case. This is beyond the scope of this PIL. Remedies for criminal investigation are there. We are only taking care of the compensation and rehabilitation part," the chief justice told Sharma.
The chief justice termed the application as "misconceived".
The collector was not a signatory to the agreement signed with the Oreva group, chief justice Agarwal noted. "Beyond this (compensation and rehabilitation), the court in the PIL can not look into the correctness of the investigation. Prayer for the quashing of the chargesheet is wholly misconceived. The present application is accordingly disposed of," she said.