KMDA brushed aside negative reports: Flyover crash accused

KOLKATA: The Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA) had allegedly been ignoring the negative test reports of the experts engaged in checking quality of materials used in the Vivekananda Road flyover, part of which had collapsed on March 31. It had also allegedly ignored the reports from TREATS, an agency engaged in quality monitoring at least twice in 2013.
“Plates supplied by the SAIL did not meet quality standards and TREATS pointed it out to KMDA which referred the matter to SAIL.While the steel producing company claimed that there was no discrepancy regarding the quality, it was again tested by TREATS after which it was found that they didn’t meet the desired quality level,” said Amit Bhattacharya — the lawyer appearing on behalf of Tapan Kumar Dhar, who was arrested on Thursday. Indian Registrar of Shipping, in which Das was a key functionary, was overseeing the quality checks on the materials used.
Dhar and three others arrested on Thursday were sent to six days’ police custody.
Present at Bankshal court, Dhar’s lawyer argued that a consignment of the steel plates used during the construction was not okayed by the agency. Two consecutive reports from the agency confirmed that. But KMDA allegedly continued construction of the bridge with the same set of steel plates. Dhar was initially a witness in the case.
Bhattacharya said that there were consecutive meetings over the quality issue in 2013. “Despite the report from the testing and inspection agency, KMDA decided to go ahead with the 32 mm steel plates,” Bhattacharya argued. He cited reports from RITES which pointed at inferior quality of raw materials like sand, cement and steel. “Dhar was never involved in the construction and has been cooperating with the investigating agency,” Bhattacharya argued.
According to a source, after the bridge collapsed on March 31, KMDA convened a meeting of all stakeholders in April. Dhar’s lawyer claimed that these arguments were placed at the meeting too.
After noting the fact that Dhar was a witness in the first chargesheet, ACJM Madhumita Basu expressed her dissatisfaction over the procedures being followed by police. She said it was interesting to note how the investigating officer was shifting the court. Police had approached the 13th metropolitan magistrate court earlier and the case was later sent to the sessions court. She sought an explanation from the investigating officer for this.