The notice issued in January stated: "From all the available facts and records, it looks like the earlier operations contract for the suspension bridge ended in March 2017. The municipality has called a special general body meeting today to file a reply to the government explaining why it should not be superseded. However, the UDD did not consider it and asked the municipality to file a reply in the form of a general board resolution. On February 7, Jayanti Ghatlodiya, a member of the municipality, filed an individual reply stating that the general board has no role in the bridge collapse. The Gujarat High Court had also asked the state government why it was not superseding the municipality by invoking section 263 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act which enables the state to dissolve a civic body if it is found lacking in discharging its duties.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |