[Morbi Bridge Collapse] Gujarat HC Issues Show Cause Notice to Oreva Group Director, Raps Company For Evading Responsibility To Rehabilitate Victims

The Gujarat High Court expressed its frustration with Oreva Group for evading responsibility in the rehabilitation of individuals affected by the Morbi suspension bridge collapse. In response, the court issued a show cause notice to the company's director, Jaysukh Patel, demanding an explanation for disregarding court orders and causing delays.

During the hearing of the suo motu PIL concerning the bridge collapse, the division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Anirudhha Mayee, became visibly upset when senior advocate Jal Unwalla, representing the company, requested more time to respond to the Morbi district collector's proposal to increase monthly financial aid from Rs 5,000 (as proposed by Oreva Group) to Rs 12,000 for different categories of victims.

The court was displeased by the company's attempts to negotiate with the collector's suggestions and silenced its lawyer, asserting that the company had no right to a hearing as it was deemed guilty.

The Chief Justice expressed frustration at the prolonged evasion, stating, “For months together, we are after you and you're not coming out. It is sketchy. Initially, you said it's not possible because your director is in jail, now the director is out. Your client has no right to agitate any issue. We are not supposed to listen to the company, you are in default, everything is before us. This is a suo moto PIL, you have no right of hearing.”

“You cannot agitate like a victim of the circumstances which is created by you. No one is responsible other than you. … Everytime you are playing a hide and seek game … You should have come out with a categorical solution from the company's side,” the CJ continued.

Moving further, the CJ pointed out, “The way it has behaved before us in the PIL also shows the vehemence of the company. The report of the experts which was given to us shows the way the bridge was maintained was the complete fault of the company. This situation was created by the company. You have replaced the wooden planks of the bridge with the aluminum planks, and let the bridge go. It was bound to fall. … Do you understand what you have done with these persons?”

The court rebuffed the lawyer's attempt to defend the company's proposal, asserting, “You are mistaken. No justification is warranted. How can you justify the suffering of those left disabled or orphaned?”

Further, the court, in a stern observation, pointed out the company's failure to establish a trust to support the affected individuals despite repeated directives from the court.

The court also highlighted the company's lack of compliance with previous orders, noting the absence of any filed affidavits regarding the implementation of its directives as of January 30 and March 22.

In a clear warning, the Chief Justice emphasized, “Not a single affidavit is there (from the company) to give us any kind of picture that you've taken steps even to do anything in this regard…we can even pass an order for attachment of your bank accounts for this. You don't take us lightly. We're given you time, that doesn't mean you can take us for a ride.”

Expressing its dissatisfaction with the conduct of the company, CJ Agarwal dictating the order, stated, “In our considered view, as the company has not come forward to file its response in spite of two orders — 30.1.2024 and 19.4.2024, for a period of about three months, we reject the further prayer made by Mr. Jal Unwalla, ld. senior advocate to grant further time to the company to evaluate the suggestions given by the collector and submit its alternative proposal. 

We are not impressed with the submission of the ld. senior advocate about the compensation given by the company pursuant to the previous orders passed by this court, inasmuch as we have expressed a categorical opinion in previous orders that the company has to provide lifetime support to orphaned children, elderly people, widows, children with single parents who have no source of income, victims of the tragedy, which was the creation of the officers of the company,” the Court added.

The court has set a deadline for a response by April 26.