Morbi bridge accident: Gujarat government issues notice to Morbi municipality asking why it should not be dissolved

This photo is from the next day of the bridge accident i.e. 31 October. A broken bridge and rescue boat are visible in it.

In Gujarat’s Morbi bridge accident, the Gujarat government has issued a show cause notice to the Morbi municipality asking why it should not be dissolved for failing to discharge its duties. Regarding this, in this notice issued by the State Urban Development Department on Wednesday, instructions have been given to submit a written explanation by January 25.

Significantly, the suspension bridge built on the Machhu river in Morbi city collapsed on October 30 last year, in which more than 135 people died. More than 40 children were also among the dead. The bridge was being operated by the Oreva Group under an agreement with Morbi Municipality.

The bridge fell only after 5 days of opening
This bridge broke down just 5 days after it was opened for the common people. About 500 people present on the bridge fell into the river. Of these, 134 have died so far. Women and more than 30 children are also included in the dead. 200 people who were holding the cable-netting of the bridge were saved.

The bridge was 143 years old
This bridge, called the identity of Morbi, was 143 years old. Its width is 1.25 m (4.6 ft). That is, almost enough so that two people can pass face to face. Its length was 233 meters (765 ft). So much so that if 500 people stand on the bridge together, everyone will be seen almost touching each other.

Left the bridge in charge of the watch-bulb making company?
This historical bridge of Morbi was under the authority of the municipality of the city. The municipality had entrusted the responsibility of repairing it to Ajanta Oreva Group of Companies. It is a manufacturer of electronic watches, calculators, home appliances and LED bulbs. Oreva was the first in the country to start selling LED bulbs with one year warranty.

Sandeep Singh Jhala, the CMO of the municipality, admitted that there was no proper system in place to monitor the company’s work during the repairs. That is, it is completely left to the company that how and with whom does it get the bridge built and when does it start?