(Morbi bridge collapse) Issues with Gujarat HC show cause for notice to Oreva Group Director, Raps Company for shirking responsibility to rehabilitate victims

The Gujarat High Court expressed frustration at the Oreva Group for evading responsibility in the rehabilitation of persons affected by the Morbi Suspension Bridge collapse. In response, the court issued a show-cause notice to the company’s director, Jaysukh Patel, seeking an explanation for defying court orders and causing delays.

During the hearing of the suo motu PIL regarding the bridge collapse, the division bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Anirudhha Mayeebecame visibly upset when senior lawyer Jal Unwalla, representing the company, asked for more time to respond to the Morbi District Collector’s proposal to increase monthly financial assistance from Rs 5,000 (as proposed by Oreva Group) to Rs 12,000 for different categories of victims.

The court was dissatisfied with the company’s attempts to negotiate with the collector’s suggestions and silenced his lawyer, claiming that the company was not entitled to a hearing because it was deemed guilty.

The Chief Justice expressed frustration at the prolonged evasion, stating: ‘We’ve been chasing you for months, but you can’t figure it out. It’s sketchy. Initially you said it is not possible because your director is in prison, now the director is free. Your client has no right to stir up an issue. We are not supposed to listen to the company, you are at fault, everything is on us. This is a suo moto PIL, you have no right to be heard.”

“You cannot move as a victim of the circumstances created by you. No one but you is responsible. … Every time you play hide and seek… You should have come up with a categorical solution from the company’s side,” the CJ continued.

Further on, the ECJ noted: “The way it has behaved towards us in the PIL also shows the vehemence of the company. The experts’ report provided to us shows that the maintenance of the bridge was entirely the company’s fault. This situation was created by the company. You replaced the wooden planks of the bridge with the aluminum planks and released the bridge. It was in danger of falling. … Do you understand what you did to these individuals?”

The court rejected the lawyer’s attempt to defend the company’s proposal, stating: “You are wrong. There is no justification warranted. How can you justify the suffering of people who have been disabled or orphaned?”

Further, in a stern observation, the court pointed out that the company had failed 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 and noted that no affidavits had been filed regarding the implementation of its directives on January 30 and March 22.

In a stark warning, the Chief Justice emphasized: “There is no affidavit (from the company) that gives us any idea that you have taken steps to even do anything in this regard…we can even pass an order to seize your bank accounts for this. You don’t take us lightly. We gave you time, but that doesn’t mean you can fool us.”

CJ Agarwal, expressing dissatisfaction with the company’s conduct, dictated the order, stating: “In our considered opinion, since the company has not come forward to file its reply despite two orders – 30.1.2024 and 19.4.2024, for a period of about three months, we reject the further prayer of Mr. Jal Unwalla . , ld. senior advocate to give the company more time to evaluate the collector’s suggestions and submit an alternative proposal.

We are not impressed with the ld’s submission. senior advocate on the compensation given by the company under the previous orders of this court as in previous orders we have expressed a categorical view that the company should provide lifelong support to orphans, elderly, widows, children with single parents who have no source of income, victims of the tragedy, namely the creation of the company’s officers,” the Court added.

The court has set the deadline for a response to April 26.