Yesterday, On 27th June, The Gujarat High Court criticized the state government for allegedly shielding an official in the lake tragedy case, highlighting issues of accountability and transparency. This incident has brought to light significant concerns about the responsibility of public officials and the decision-making processes in urban development projects.
Gujarat: The Gujarat High Court, On Thursday, June 27, expressed strong dissatisfaction and criticism regarding the state government’s report on the Vadodara Harni Lake tragedy, which led to the deaths of 14 individuals, including 12 children.
The court questioned the credibility of the inquiry committee’s report, implying it aimed to protect the then municipal commissioner of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC) while shifting the blame to the technical team and contractor.
Read Also: HC Orders Investigation Against Former-Vadodara Civic Chief |Gujarat Boat Tragedy
The high court bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi observed,
“The report’s wording suggests an effort to place the entire blame on the technical team and the contractor,”
They addressing a public interest litigation case related to the January 19 incident in which a boat capsized on Harni lake,
Earlier, the court mandated an investigation into the municipal commissioner’s role, observing that the commissioner “illegally” awarded a contract to M/s Kotia Projects for managing and developing the lake. However, the committee’s report, headed by the principal secretary of the urban development department, did not find any wrongdoing on the commissioner’s part.
Chief Justice Agarwal expressed significant concern, suggesting that the report seemed designed to “shield the municipal commissioner.” The court scrutinized the commissioner’s decision to rely exclusively on the technical evaluators’ report without conducting an independent review or exercising personal judgment.
Chief Justice Agarwal stated,
“The report appears to be an effort to shield the municipal commissioner. The committee highlights issues but then downplays the commissioner’s role. It notes that the municipal commissioner generally trusts the technical officer’s report, and therefore, should have been more cautious in awarding such contracts,”
She further observed,
“The principal secretary of the urban development department chairs the committee. What are we to make of this report? It merely states that the municipal commissioner did nothing wrong by relying on the technical evaluators’ report. But where is the element of ‘review, rescind’? This is a critical decision. Should the municipal commissioner make such decisions with closed eyes and ears, ignoring the details in the file he signs off on?”
The bench also noted the report’s implication that,
“Once a technical report was submitted, the municipal commissioner had no choice but to sign it, assuming it was done in good faith, he could have been more diligent.”
Chief Justice Agarwal added,
“If this is the standard approach, the court is concerned.”
The court queried Advocate General Kamal Trivedi on whether to accept the report, suggesting that acceptance could further complicate the principal secretary’s position. The Advocate General requested additional time to review the report, which the court granted, scheduling an in-depth hearing for July 4.
Read Also: Gujarat HC Dismisses Compensation Challenges in Sabarmati Ashram Redevelopment
In the prior hearing, the court raised concerns about how tenders were being granted to individuals overseeing operations like boating in the lake zone.
After examining the report submitted Thursday, the court voiced significant dissatisfaction. It previously called for an unbiased investigation and a comprehensive report on the conduct of those involved, including the former municipal commissioner.