Hatkeshwar Bridge:  Court pulls up cop, AMC for failing to explain probe details

A day ago, the court had directed AMC to submit reports prepared by it before and after the filing of the police complaint that details the reasons on why the deterioration of the bridge occurred and those responsible for the same. The court had also directed the civic body city engineer to submit an administrative action taken report in this regard.

The AMC on Friday told the court that reports prepared before the filing of the complaint are part of the FIR and no reports have been prepared by it after the filing of the police complaint and the chargesheet. It also said that it submitted a report prepared by its vigilance department to the investigating officer (IO) on June 17.

Submitting that probe is ongoing despite filing of the chargesheet, the AMC stressed that it cannot share reports beyond what already forms part of the record.

The court, however, sought an explanation from the IO on how the dilapidation can be attributed as AEIPL’s fault and not a design fault, as submitted by the accused.

The accused told the court that the design, made following a work order issued by AMC in 2013 to a firm named DELF, did not adhere to Indian Roads Congress codes stipulated for controlling cracking in concrete flyover slabs.

The accused proprietors also submitted that the design was then approved by the state’s road and buildings department and AMC, and that it has not been the prosecution’s case that AEIPL did not follow the design as was given to them.

The court raised questions on the quality assurance plan followed for the Hatkeshwar bridge with the judge orally inquiring the investigation officer as to who all were involved in the quality assurance activity.

“If they (AEIPL) passed all tests (for quality assurance)…then how did this outcome happen?”…Is it your finding that fabricated (sample) material was sent for testing?” the court asked the IO, who responded that they are seeking details on these aspects.

The court remarked, “If you are not sure, then why are you arresting (the accused)? I won’t decide on someone’s rights on incomplete information…I will observe IO (investigating officer) is clueless, AMC is not cooperating (in sharing information with the court) and that this court is constrained to grant bail (if more information on the design and quality assurance specifics are not forthcoming from IO and/or AMC).” Remarking that the AMC is “not interested that the truth surfaces”, the court kept the matter for hearing on Saturday.

The court also instructed the IO to furnish details as sought by it earlier from the civic body.