Court: VMC inspection letter has general instructions, no visit was made to lake

The court, which said that the partners – Jatin Doshi, Tejal Doshi and Neha Doshi – were “equally responsible for criminal negligence”, also considered representations made by the special public prosecutor with reference to the October 2022 Morbi bridge collapse case.

In its three orders rejecting the bail plea of the partners, the court observed that VMC’s “inspection letter” dated November 2, 2022 – submitted by the municipal commissioner to the police – was a “mere set of general instructions without seemingly visiting the Lake Zone”.

Considering police submissions that VMC was yet to submit records sought for probe, the court said that a letter dated November 2, 2022 – submitted by the VMC Commissioner to the police – written by the civic body’s futuristic planning cell to Kotia Projects, directed the firm to complete fire NOC and insurance requirements, deploy security, CCTV cameras and life guards and also adhere to the agreement with VMC, among others.

“However, from this letter… it does not appear that… (inspection) was undertaken and therefore, no shortcomings were observed and Kotia Projects was not asked to immediately rectify faults… Instead, the letter appears to (contain) general instructions. It does not appear VMC conducted an inquiry into shortcomings observed after undertaking a visit…,” the court added.

The special public prosecutor also informed that Kotia Projects, which sub-let the contract of operating the boat service at Lake Zone, did not inform the VMC about the same.

The court said, “The tri-party contract to run the boating facility was effected on June 8, 2023, between Kotia Projects, Tri-star enterprises and Dolphin Entertainment… Just by sub-letting a contract, the onus of ensuring safety cannot be shifted to the sub-contractor. The partners of Kotia Projects cannot take defence that they did not know about the contract.”

“…the boat was overloaded, the passengers did not have life jackets, there were no speedboats or life guards. A total of 30 people were made to sit on the boat. The lake is 13 feet deep and so there was a certain risk of an accident. The petitioners and other accused have violated all laws,” it added.

The court considered the submissions that the police investigation has revealed that the boat operator had installed a Yamaha-brand motor on the boat on his own. The prosecution lawyer said, “There is no evidence to prove that such a heavy boat could be used for the purpose… This incident is the same as the Morbi bridge incident, in which, despite Oreva company sub-letting the contract to another firm, the company directors were arrested and despite being chargesheeted, the Gujarat High Court rejected their bail pleas (last December), considering the gravity of the offence.”

The court order also extensively quoted observations of the HC order that rejected the bail plea of Oreva directors in Morbi case.

Advocate Hitesh Gupta, appearing for the parents of the deceased students, told the court that VMC was as responsible for the tragedy as Kotia Projects, as both “did not learn lessons after the Morbi accident” or conduct inspections that “could have avoided the catastrophe”.

The court observed, “The word action denotes an action as well as inaction… In the current case, the petitioners, being partners in the project, had the duty to ensure that proper safety measures were in place and if suitable persons were running the boating facility. In this contract, all partners are equally liable for ensuring the workings…”

“This negligence is not a casual negligence but that which could cause immediate death, which even the common man can understand. Therefore, the negligence on part of the partners is criminal negligence.”

Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime) Yuvrajsinh Jadeja, a supervising officer of the Vadodara Police special investigation team that is investigating the case, said: “During inspection of the boat by forensic experts, it emerged that the Yamaha-motor was installed later. We called the manufacturers of the boat… there is a provision for motors to be installed later by owners. Although experts have said that the motor installed on the boat was of the correct capacity, in this case, the contractors did not have the necessary certification to run motorised boats…”