While hearing the case that the HC took suo motu cognisance of and asked response from six government departments, the bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J Shastri asked, “Why was the tender for the repair work of a public bridge not floated? Why weren't bids invited?”

Bashing at the chief secretary, the bench said, “The largesse of the state seems to have been granted without there being any tender floated in this regard.” The court also held the municipality responsible for the tragic incident and said, “The municipality, which is a government body, has defaulted, which ultimately killed 135 people.”

Also Read|?Morbi Bridge Collapse In Gujarat Not The First Of Its Kind, In Last 10 Years India Witnessed Several Bridge Crashes

Notably, the Morbi municipality signed a contract with Oreva group, a private enterprise known for making wall clocks to maintain and renovate the bridge. Oreva, as per the reports then subcontracted the ‘technical aspect of the bridge renovation’ to an unknown company named Devprakash Solutions.

Secondly, as the contract of renovation showed that Oreva was not supposed to open the bridge before eight months since March when it was signed. However, in a rush it opened it on October 26 leading to the tragedy. The municipal commissioner following the incident also alleged that the private firm didn’t take the required permission of the government before opening it for the public.

Whatever the role of the private firm may be., the court says that the government cannot evade the responsibility. “How was an agreement for such an important work completed in just one and a half pages?” the bench asked.

It also pointed out that the 15 years contract between the collector and Oreva had been signed in 2008. But, after June, 2017 there is no renewal agreement. The HC asked how the bridge continued to be operated by the same firm.

“The list of chronological events would indicate that MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) was signed on June 16, 2008, between Collector and the contractor. This was to operate, maintain, manage and collect rent in respect of the suspension bridge. The said period expired on June 15, 2017. Thus the moot question would be: Under this MoU, who had been fixed the responsibility to certify the fitness of bridge... After the term was over in 2017, what steps were taken by Morbi civic body and the Collector thereafter to float a tender?” the HC asked.

Interestingly, even after two weeks of the incident no person from the Oreva management had been taken into custody. Police had arrested mainly the security guards and the person who were selling tickets for negligence of the duty. Though it was gross mistake to sell more than 500 tickets for a bridge that is not equipped to take pressure of more than 150 people, the management hardly can evade the accountability.

The government nevertheless submitted that it conducted the rescue works in ‘lightening’ speed and saved several lives. The HC has asked for all the documents related to the contracts since 2008 when the deal was clinched. The court has also directed the principle strict judge of Morbi to order the civic body to furnish all the documents of renovation contract.

The HC will continue the hearing tomorrow.