According to Shi Guide's lawsuit, due to the collapse accident of Jiujiang Bridge on National Highway 325 on June 15, 2007, Haizhu District People's Court held that there was no quality problem in Jiujiang Bridge, which was caused by the collision of the "Nanguiji 035" ship with its pier, and found that the accident was its unilateral responsibility, and was convicted of traffic accident. He refused to accept this and appealed, and the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court upheld the original judgment. He has applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial, and the case is still under trial.
Shi Guide sued that the above case involved whether the Jiujiang Bridge collapsed due to its own quality problems, but the drawings and documents provided by the accident investigation organ and the judicial organ were incomplete. The courts of first and second instance simply determined that the bridge had no quality problems, and the basis was obviously insufficient. He commissioned a salvage company and experts to explore the No.24 pier of Jiujiang Bridge, and has initially obtained the evidence of short piles of Jiujiang Bridge. In order to further find out the cause of the accident, he applied to the provincial quality supervision station to disclose the above drawings and materials of Jiujiang Bridge, and the other party made a "reply", saying that the above drawings and materials were filed by the engineering construction and storage unit and did not belong to its public scope. It is suggested to apply to the project construction trust unit.
Shi Guide refused to accept and applied for reconsideration to the Guangdong Provincial Department of Transportation. The Guangdong Provincial Department of Transportation made an administrative reconsideration decision to maintain the aforementioned administrative actions of the provincial quality supervision station.
Shi Guide asked the court to revoke the reply of Guangdong Provincial Traffic Quality Supervision Station to the application for government information disclosure made by the provincial quality supervision station, revoke the administrative reconsideration decision made by the Guangdong Provincial Department of Transportation, and order the provincial quality supervision station to make a new reply to its application for information disclosure of Jiujiang Bridge on National Highway 325, and disclose relevant information.
The Guangdong Provincial Department of Transportation believes that the reconsideration case involved in this case is legal and the decision to maintain it is legal. According to the Regulations on the Completion and Acceptance of Jiujiang Bridge, the provincial quality supervision station has no obligation to keep the relevant information and documents of the pier involved in the case that Shi Guide applied for disclosure. Before the "6. 15 Jiujiang Bridge Incident", the provincial quality supervision station was not the competent department for the completion and acceptance of the original Jiujiang Bridge in Guangdong Province on National Highway 325, so it had no obligation to keep these materials.
The Provincial Department of Transportation also believes that according to the Regulations on Reconstruction and Restoration of Jiujiang Bridge after Collapse in 2007, the Provincial Quality Supervision Station has no responsibility to keep the relevant materials and documents of the pier substructure involved in the reconstruction of Jiujiang Bridge at the original bridge site. In addition, the provincial quality supervision station informed Shi Guide to apply for information disclosure to the Jiujiang Bridge construction and maintenance unit in the "Reply", which is in line with the Regulations on the Openness of Government Information and the information disclosure regulations of the Ministry of Transport.
The Provincial Department of Transportation believes that Shi Guide's request to cancel his administrative reconsideration behavior is unfounded and should not be supported, because the provincial quality supervision station itself has no responsibility to save information. In his reply, he informed that the application for information disclosure to Jiujiang Bridge maintenance unit does not affect its legality, and the reply behavior and content of the provincial quality supervision station do not conform to the Administrative Reconsideration Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), so the administration should cancel, change or confirm it.
At the same time, the provincial quality supervision station also believes that Shi Guide's application procedure for information disclosure is legal and the content of the reply is legal. In his reply, he informed the Jiujiang Bridge construction management unit to apply for information disclosure, which was in line with the Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information and the information disclosure regulations of the Ministry of Transport. Therefore, I asked the court to reject Shi Guide's claim.
It is reported that the case is still under investigation.
I hope the law can give Shi Guide a statement to support you in seeking the truth!