Chief Justice Questions Inquiry Report on Vadodara Boat Tragedy; Points to Possible Misconduct by Municipal Commissioner

In a hearing on the tragic incident where twelve students and two teachers lost their lives due to a boat capsizing in Motnath lake in Harni on January 18, the division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi expressed concerns over the inquiry report submitted by the state Urban Development & Urban Housing Department. The report was reviewed in the context of a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

Inquiry Report Criticized

Chief Justice Agarwal pointed out that the report appeared to protect the then municipal commissioner of Vadodara, despite acknowledging some faults. “It is a kind of report where there is an effort to protect the then municipal commissioner of Vadodara. Though the committee found fault, it seeks to sideline the role of the commissioner,” she remarked.

The Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC) had previously awarded a contract to Kotia Projects for the maintenance and operation of the lakefront project, whose partners were later arrested following the incident.

Departmental Inquiry Ordered

During a hearing on April 25, the bench had ordered a departmental inquiry against the then municipal commissioner for allegedly granting the contract to Kotia Projects in 2015-16. According to the VMC’s incumbency chart, HS Patel served as the municipal commissioner from February 25, 2015, to June 23, 2016, succeeded by Dr. Vinod Rao from June 24, 2016, to July 17, 2018.

Advocate General to Review Report

The bench directed that Advocate General Kamal Trivedi be given a copy of the report for review, setting the next hearing date for July 4.

Concerns Over Tendering Process

The inquiry committee had recommended strict qualification criteria for new tenders statewide. However, Chief Justice Agarwal questioned the scope of the inquiry, stating it was not intended to cover such recommendations.

The report noted discrepancies in the handling of the Expression of Interest (EOI) and tender processes by the VMC. Initially, Kotia Projects was disqualified due to financial and technical incompetence but was later awarded the contract during a second attempt. The EOI allowed for collaboration with other entities, while the tender did not permit joint ventures, leading to the selection of a previously disqualified bidder.

Role of the Municipal Commissioner

The Chief Justice pointed out that the municipal commissioner has the authority to review, reverse, or rescind proposals from the technical committee but usually relies on their recommendations. The report seemed to absolve the commissioner of wrongdoing, implying that technical committee approvals leave the commissioner powerless. “The report suggests the MC did nothing wrong. So MC will keep his eyes & ears closed before signing…If this approach persists, we are in a difficult situation,” Chief Justice Agarwal stated.

This development underscores the need for accountability and transparency in municipal operations, particularly in the wake of tragic incidents. The court’s scrutiny of the inquiry report highlights the ongoing challenges in ensuring responsible governance and safeguarding public interests.

For ongoing updates and detailed coverage of financial market trends and legal developments, visit Kanishk Social Media. If you found this article informative, please share it with others who may benefit from understanding the dynamics of legislative functions and the role of opposition in a democracy.