Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

[2.4] Pursuant to the said incident, the Gujarat Engineering Research R/CR.MA/11960/2014 ORDER Institution (GERI), Vadodara was consulted and asked for inspection of the site. The highest authority of the Surat Municipal Corporation provided all details about bridge to the said Institution which is an expert, including the debris and material used in the construction etc. The designing of bridge were sent to one Sarar Vallabhbhai National Institute and Technology Surat (SVNIT) for its verification. A detailed report was submitted by SVNIT in which it was found that the design of the bridge itself was a faulty one. A report with regard to material used in the construction work of the said bridge was received from GERI which has found not as per the standards and the strength required. The said slab was also not as per the requirement.

[8] Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the Investigating Officer Shri Haresh Dudhat, Assistant Commissioner of Police, "E" Division, Surat has filed detailed affidavit and opposed this application.

[9] Mr.R. C. Kodekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by taking me through the evidence so far collected in absence of arrest R/CR.MA/11960/2014 ORDER of almost all the accused, has vehemently opposed this application and submit that the applicant has committed serious crime in which 10 poor labourers have lost their lives and other six have sustained major or minor injuries. He would submit that the report of GERI and SVNIT is very clear about the reasons for collapse of a bridge. As per his submission, the construction of a bridge can be divided into three parts; (I) designing of bridge, (ii) construction of a bridge in which standard material is to be used for such construction and (iii) supervision by concerned Engineer whether the construction company is carrying out the work using the material as per the norms or not. He would submit that as per the report of SVNIT, the bridge was designed in such a manner that the center of gravity was instable. The slab between span No.64 and 65 which was not properly carved out which is required to be done by the designer. He would submit that when the design itself was a faulty one prepared and approved by highly skilled expert like the Architectures and Designers, which has been collapsed even before opening for public and, therefore, it cannot be said that they had no knowledge about effect of faulty design.

[13] As far as the present applicant is concerned, she is the Assistant Manager of M/s.S. N. Bhobe and Associates. The design with R/CR.MA/11960/2014 ORDER regard to the collapsed slab which is having a sharp curve, were sent on 02.01.2014, were approved by her. She is a final authority in the said company and, therefore, she could not shurk from her liability either to the person who has prepared this design or examined the same and placed before her for approval. She cannot shurk her liability for approving faulty design. As stated hereinabove, subsequent to collapse of the said curved slab, the designs, provides by M/s.S. N. Bhobe and Associates, were sent to Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute and Technology Surat for verifying the same. The relevant part of the report of SVNIT reads as under:

[16] While hearing of the bail application under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code and in absence of sufficient material, at this stage, this Court would not like to express any opinion whether there was lack of knowledge on the part of designers or not. However, the report of SVNIT, prima faice, suggests that the design was faulty from all angles. I have also gone through the other statements of the witnesses which I would not like to discuss the same at this stage since the investigation is at the preliminary stage.