How was Morbi Bridge allowed to be operated after agreement expired? Gujarat High Court seeks State response

The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday sought a response from the State government on why the Morbi Bridge was permitted to be operated by a private contractor for three years after the expiration of the initial agreement..A Bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J Shastri asked the State to secure the file containing the contract and submit it to the Court in sealed cover. "On what basis the bridge was permitted to be operated by the contractor for three years, after the first agreement expired? Details of all these questions to be given on affidavit on next hearing after two weeks," it ordered..Last week, the Bench had taken suo motu cognizance of the tragic collapse of a suspension bridge called Julto Pul in Morbi, Gujarat on October 30, which resulted in the death of over 140 persons.The Bench had previously directed the State, its Chief Secretary, the Morbi Municipal Corporation, the Urban Development Department (UDD), the State Home Department and the State Human Rights Commission to be impleaded as parties in the matter..From the State, the Court had sought a report on the steps taken so far. A similar report from the State Human Rights Commission was also called for.CJ Kumar clarified that on October 31, he had given telephonic directions to the Registrar of the High Court to register an article by Times of India on the incident as a public interest litigation (PIL), but could not sit on the same day to hear the matter due to the Diwali vacation..Appearing for the State on Tuesday, Advocate General Kamal Trivedi informed the Bench that an ex-gratia amount of ₹2 lakh would be paid to the kin of the deceased and ₹5 lakh would be paid to those injured. Similarly, the Central government will pay ₹2 lakh to all deceased persons and ₹50,000 to those injured, he revealed."Probe is on. Even forensic team is investigating the issue and has sought details regarding the structure. [The report] Also informs of the persons arrested and officials suspended due to this incident," the AG said. .During the course of the hearing, the Bench sought a copy of the agreement entered into between the contractor and the Morbi Municipal Corporation for maintenance, security and upkeep of the bridge."See your agreement - it is hardly one and a half pages, absolutely without any condition, nothing. This is by way of an understanding and largesse of the State for 10 years and no tender floated, no expression of interest," the Chief Justice pointed out. .The Court further noted that even after the term of the contract ended on June 15, 2017, the State and the civic body did not float a tender. "How largesse of the State was given to an individual without a tender? Why have the State not superseded the municipality yet?"It went on to state that since 2017, the bridge was being maintained by the same contractor, despite the absence of a Memorandum of Understanding or agreement. "The contractor informed the Collector on various dates from February 2020 that until and unless agreement is executed, they would not carry out repair works. Yet, the contractor maintained the bridge and even received revenue from the visitors of the bridge," the Court said. .Additionally, the Court also asked the State to explain why disciplinary proceedings had not been initiated against the Chief Officer of the Morbi civic body.Finally, the State was asked to take a stand on whether it can provide compassionate jobs to family members of sole earning members who died in the incident..During the hearing, the bench noted that the Morbi Municipal Corporation did not appear in the matter despite a notice issued by the Registry. "So they are acting smart now," CJ Kumar remarked. The bench, therefore, ordered the Principal District Judge, Morbi to serve a notice to the civic body through a bailiff, indicating that hearing of the case is scheduled on Wednesday morning. "So tomorrow, we will keep this matter only for hearing the municipal authorities. Others need to be present," the bench clarified..[Read our live-coverage of the hearing below]