Why maintenance & ops contract given without floating tender: HC

Ahmedabad: Days after 135 people were killed when a suspension bridge collapsed in Morbi town, the Gujarat High Court on Tuesday asked the state government as to why no expression of interest (EoI) was invited for maintenance and operation of the British-era structure and how "largesse" was given to an individual without floating a tender.

The HC made the observation while hearing a suo motu (on its own) Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the collapse of the suspension bridge on the Machchhu river on October 30, five days after it was reopened following renovation.

The high court wanted to know from the state government as to whether a 2008 Memorandum of Understanding and a 2022 agreement with Ajanta Manufacturing Private Ltd (Oreva Group) imposed any conditions regarding fitness certification and if so, who was the competent authority required to do so.

The Ahmedabad-based Oreva group had been maintaining and managing the ill-fated suspension bridge.

"This (2008) agreement with Ajanta (Oreva Group) is one-and-a-quarter pages agreement, absolutely without any conditions. This agreement is by way of an understanding, largesse of the state for ten years, and no tenders floated, no expression of interest," a division bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri observed.

"After that term was over in June 15, 2017, what steps were taken by the state government or the Morbi municipality to float a tender? How come no expression of interest was tendered, and how the largesse of the state was given to an individual without floating a tender...Why you have still not superseded the municipality?" the court asked.

The court observed that even after the term of Ajanta got over in June 15, 2017, the corporate entity continued to maintain and manage the bridge in absence of an agreement.

It wanted to know from the state government whether any steps were taken by the local authorities to float a tender for the bridge's operation and maintenance after the 2008 MoU expired in 2017.

"Under the said (2008) MoU (not available at present), who had been fixed the responsibility to certify that the bridge is ready and fit for usage is not forthcoming. The largesse of the state seems to have been granted without there being any tender floated in this regard," observed the judges.