Morbi Bridge Collapse: Gujarat High Court says it did not direct State to take control of Morbi Nagar Palika

The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday dismissed an application filed by 46 councillors of the Morbi Nagar Palika (MNP) who sought to intervene in the suo motu case on the Morbi bridge collapse, on the ground that the State government is likely to dissolve the civic body and take over its administration [Suo Motu PIL v. State of Gujarat]..A Division Bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J Shastri made it clear the Court did not pass any order calling for the State government to take over the MNP, and that the applicant councillors 'absolutely misunderstood' its observations."It was the submission of the Advocate General that the State is contemplating to take a decision (to supersede). We haven't ordered or directed the State to do so. Also, based on mere apprehensions that the State might take some decision etc, we cannot allow any intervention," CJ Kumar remarked..Senior Advocate Navin Kumar Pahwa, representing the councillors, contended that the Bench had in an order passed on November 24, observed that the State should exercise its powers under the Gujarat Municipalities Act and dissolve the Morbi Nagar Palika. Pahwa pointed out that the observations of the Court are considered as directions and that the State was likely to take a decision superseding the civic body."We fought elections and won the same. Now by virtue of this Court's observations, the State would give a go-bye to the procedures for dissolving a civic body and send us home. The observations are going to affect us adversely. Thus, we seek to be impleaded as a party in the present proceedings," Pahwa argued..The Court noted that it was empowered under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to implead or join parties as may be necessary in order to enable it to effectually adjudicate upon a given case. However, it said,"We have observed (in one of our earlier orders) that there was a default on part of the civic body and in this view we had posed to the State as to why it hasn't taken action against the civic body. Even before an action is taken, the present application has been filed to thwart the present proceedings. The applicants, thus cannot be construed to be necessary or proper parties."The Bench added that if at all there are any steps taken by the State, it would be open for the councillors to challenge the said decision."Hence, we are of the opinion that the councillors, aren't a necessary or proper party. At this stage, their presence isn't necessary and thus, we dismiss the civil application.".During the course of the hearing, the Bench also allowed the private contractor, Ajanta, which was roped in for carrying out repair works on the bridge, to intervene in the proceedings. This, after another intervenor - the kin of two victims who died in the incident - sought to implead the contractor as a party to the petition..The matter will be next heard on January 19, 2023.