The Gujarat High Court issued its decision on Monday. The Gujarat High Court noted today that the Morbi Civic Body had ignored the warning signalled by the Private Contractor (M/S Ajanta) regarding the 'critical condition' of the Morbi Suspension bridge while hearing the suo moto case pertaining to the October 30 Morbi Bridge Collapse incident, which claimed the lives of 141 people.

"The tenor of the letter sent by the Nagar Palika to the Ajanta on 19/01/2022 indicates concentrates more on the price of the tickets rather than the price of the tickets. In other words, as of 19/01/2021, the Nagar Palika seems to have ignored the warning of the condition of the bridge which had been signalled by the m/s Ajanta. Thus, the communications exchanged between the Morbi Nagar Palika and m/s Ajanta is for the retention of the contract by Ajanta rather than bestowing attention to the repair of the bridge, which was in a critical stage," the bench remarked.

The Court also stated that the MOU/agreement signed between the civic body and Ajanta on March 8, 2022, was not approved by the Civic Body's general body. The Court also questioned the State Government as to why it did not exercise its power to supersede the municipality under Section 263 of the Gujarat Municipality Act. This provision empowers the state to dissolve a civic body in the event of an abuse of power, default, and so on.

Furthermore, the court requested information on the breakdown of all compensation amounts, including how much came from the CM relief fund, how much came from the PM relief fund, and how much came from private donors. The state government was also asked to provide information on the deceased's dependents and kin.

"What was the Morbi Civic body doing between August 2017 to March 2022? The duration during which there was no agreement/MOU for the maintenance of the bridge. Who allowed Ajanta to maintain the bridge? The bridge was shut only in March 2022, what about the 5 years duration before that? How will you explain your inaction?," After noting that the civic body had been silent for approximately 5 years, the bench inquired of the Nagar Palika.

The High Court made these observations today; just days after the Supreme Court directed it to review the case on a regular basis. On November 21, the Supreme Court granted the petitioners the right to approach the High Court to raise their concerns, either by filing an independent writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or by intervening in the suo motu case.