Shillong, June 2: The Meghalaya High Court on Wednesday disposed off a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) into the safety of the Umiam reservoir bridge. In its order, the two-member bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W Diengdoh said it is hoped that the state would take necessary further action upon obtaining appropriate advice from experts.

The order was referring to reports of traffic movement on the relevant bridge being regulated.

The Advocate-General had informed that the State has conducted an assessment on the load-bearing capacity of the existing bridge and the scientific report obtained reveals that it can bear the weight of 20 MT vehicles on either side in tandem.

The Court, however, said it does not have the expertise to go into the veracity of such assessment and leaves the state free to take whatever appropriate measures may be necessary so as to ensure that there is sufficient flow in the movement of traffic but that life and property are not endangered in any manner.

Quite plainly, the Court does not have the wherewithal to indicate the parameters as to the weight of the vehicles that ought to be allowed to ply and the 10 MT figure was based on the affidavit filed by the BRO.

The State says that steps have been taken to invite tenders for bolstering the existing bridge or for carrying out supporting construction which would ensure the longevity of the existing bridge.

Meanwhile, the court said: “Care must also be taken to ensure that the regulation in the movement of goods vehicles on the existing Umiam Bridge is not used as an excuse to inflate prices of essential commodities in the local markets.”

Earlier on May 4, the previous order had recorded that it was the opinion of the National Highways Authority of India and the Border Roads Organisation that the Umiam Bridge required immediate attention, possibly even a replacement by a more robust construction.

An affidavit was filed on behalf of the BRO indicating that vehicles bearing a total weight in excess of 10 MT should not be allowed to ply over the bridge.

Upon such an affidavit being filed by a responsible public body, the Court was apprehensive as to the ability of the existing bridge to withstand traffic and the State was called upon to take appropriate steps.