On Wednesday, the Gujarat High Court instructed the state government to submit a report detailing the actions taken against the office-bearers of Morbi municipality. This directive followed the SIT's identification of lapses in the aftermath of the October 2022 bridge collapse, which resulted in 135 fatalities.

The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi, observed that the government has yet to provide an Action Taken Report (ATR) despite the SIT's findings highlighting lapses by Morbi Nagarpalika officials, including the former chief officer.

Meanwhile, a man who lost two relatives in the bridge collapse has petitioned the high court, requesting orders for the repair and restoration of the heritage British-era structure, as well as directives for individualized compensation. During the hearing of a suo motu PIL, Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal pointed out that the state government has not yet submitted an Action Taken Report (ATR) in response to the SIT's findings, which identified lapses by Morbi Nagarpalika office-bearers, including the former chief officer. The SIT's final report was submitted on October 9, 2023.

Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal emphasized that the government should file an Action Taken Report (ATR) against the erring individuals, as the SIT highlighted their inaction. When asked about the actions taken based on the SIT report, Advocate General Kamal Trivedi assured the court that the ATR would be presented soon. The court had previously directed the government to submit this report, particularly focusing on the lapses identified by the SIT.

The court also addressed the Oreva Group's compensation and rehabilitation proposal, which includes a monthly payment of ₹12,000 to every surviving victim and the families of those who died. Additionally, the group agreed to cover educational expenses for orphaned children or those who lost a parent. The court instructed the Oreva Group's trust to establish a mechanism to implement these payments.

Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal emphasized that the government should file a report on the action taken against the erring individuals, especially given that the SIT highlighted inaction on their part.

"What method have you worked out to make this payment?" the court asked, before directing the trust to work out a mechanism.

Mr Chavda demanded that the cost of repairs be borne by the Oreva Group, responsible for the bridge's operation and maintenance, as well as state authorities, including the district administration and Morbi municipality. He argued that the bridge, a public asset, should not have been managed as private property.

"The Morbi bridge was a property of the public at large and was not a private property of either of the concerned respondents that they could deal with it in a manner of their choice ...The concerned respondents are absolutely liable for the operation and maintenance of the bridge," the plea stated.