‘Largesse of State’: Gujarat HC on Morbi bridge tragedy

The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday while seeking answers to various critical questions from the state government on the Morbi bridge collapse said “largesse of the State seems to have been granted without there being any tender floated in that regard”.

The court was referring to the clock-making firm Oreva Group, which had acquired the rights of managing the bridge and earning revenue without any tendering process.

The division bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri pulled up the state government and said that the agreement was barely one-and-a-quarter-page and was signed “absolutely without any condition...no tender floated, no expression of interest”.

Ajanta’s term ended

“The largesse of the State seems to have been granted without there being any tender floated in that regard. After the term of Ajanta was over on 15.6.2017 as to what steps were taken by the Collector, Rajkot, and Morbi Municipality thereafter to call for either Expression of Interest or floated Tender for the further period is also not forthcoming from the
affidavit which has been filed” the bench noted in its order.

Oreva Group is associated with Ajanta Manufacturing Limited, the famous clock-making brand based in Morbi. The company had a contract of maintaining the suspension bridge which
collapsed on October 30, resulting in the death of 135 people.

Citing the “chronology of events” disclosed in the affidavit filed by Regional Commissioner of Municipality, Rajkot, the bench noted that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was executed between Rajkot Collector and Ajanta on June 16, 2008, to “operate, maintain, manage and collect rent in respect of the suspension bridge and the said 9 years’ period expired on 15.6.2017.” In 2008, Morbi was part of the Rajkot district.

The bench noted that on “moot question”, under MoU who had the responsibility to certify that the bridge was ready and fit for usage was forthcoming in the affidavit filed in the court.

From the affidavit, the court noticed that for a period of two years, “without there being any MoU or agreement or entrustment, the subject bridge continued to be maintained and managed by Ajanta.”

“Intriguingly the said Ajanta informed the Collector, Morbi on various dates from 14.2.2020, 3.6.2020, 17.7.2020, and till 27.8.2020 stating until and unless an agreement is executed, they would not commence the repair work of the bridge. Yet, the said Ajanta continued to operate, maintain and receive revenue from the visitors to the bridge.”