Tatas vs ‘people in power’ Gloves off but no stay on Day One

The Tata Motors legal team today drew a distinction between the State and governments and pointed out that the “very people who created the lawless situation are now in power”. But the high court did not issue an interim order following an assurance by the administration that peace would be maintained at the Singur site taken over last night. The hearing on the Tata petition against the new government’s law that was invoked to reclaim the Singur factory land will resume tomorrow afternoon. The company lawyers blamed politics and held both the Left Front and the current dispensation — without naming either — responsible for the exit of the Nano plant from Bengal. The lawyers said the project was relocated to Gujarat after the “previous government” failed to maintain law and order. Barrister Samaraditya Pal, appearing for Tata Motors, added that the “very people who created the lawless situation (at Singur) are now in power”. “Politics should be behind economics but sadly it is ahead today and the common people are the sufferer,” Samaraditya Pal said during his three-hour argument that would continue tomorrow before Justice Saumitra Pal. Justice Pal did not pass any interim order today to enforce status quo on the Singur land or stay the Singur land act. The court was assured by the state advocate-general, Anindya Mitra, that enough police and security personnel have been mobilised at the site, 45km from Calcutta on Durgapur Expressway in Hooghly district. Justice Pal said law and order should be maintained and peace and tranquillity ensured at the site to protect the assets of Tata Motors and its associates on 997 acres. Around 500 security personnel, including a wing called “special strike force”, have been deployed at the Singur site. The factory has several shells of the Nano, wheels and accessories, besides cables, air conditioners, generators and huge containers. Some villagers stood in queues and sneaked into the factory though gaps in the walls and took away broken iron rods, plastic pipes and window frames. Officials said such “pilfering of junk” has been a regular occurrence, adding that the incidents could not be classified as “looting” or “vandalism”. In the court, Tata Motors said it came to invest in Singur at the invitation of the State and not the government, making a distinction between the two. It pointed out that the State was a continuation and the government, which acted as an arm of the State, changes every five years following elections that reflect the people’s verdict. “The verdict (in Bengal) was in favour of a party which is responsible for the Tatas to leave,” barrister Samaraditya Pal said. The counsel’s contention directly linked the Tata departure to chief minister  Mamata Banerjee’s party, unlike the company statement last week. The statement issued by Tata Motors on the day the bill was passed had referred to “violent agitation” and “hostilities” at the site but had not explicitly held anyone responsible. “India is a confederation of the states, not of governments,” Samaraditya Pal said in order to drive home the point that State policy should not be made subservient to the whims of political parties. The company said the Singur Act was bad in law and against the tenets of the Constitution. It also countered an assertion in the Singur Act that the company had abandoned the site. “The land remained unutilised. Who is responsible? Is it the State or is it my (Tata Motors) fault?” Samaraditya Pal asked. He said the land was acquired under a central act (the land acquisition act of 1894) and leased to the company. While taking the land back, the central act was not amended and a state law could not bypass the mother law. The company said it had offered two options to the previous government: an alternative project on the same land or move out if compensated for the loss but it did not respond to the communication. The company pointed out that no termination notice was sent as was required under the lease deed agreement. Tata Motors said that in the lease deed of March 2007, the State had promised to provide peaceful possession of land and also pledged to indemnify the company from any losses that would arise if any court held that the acquisition was bad in law. The courtroom witnessed some heated exchanges between the two sides. Tata Motors was represented by Samaraditya Pal and his associate Siddhartha Mitra and the government by Anindya Mitra, counsel and MP Kalyan Bandopadhyay and government pleader Ashok Banerjee. When Samaraditya Pal prayed that the State must protect the company’s assets, Bandopadhyay quoted a Tata letter to suggest no “plant or machinery” were left at the site after the relocation. Samaraditya Pal spoke of contempt of court following a remark by Bandopadhyay about the chief justice. Bandopadhyay said he did not insult the chief justice. Courtesy- The Telegraph,Kolkata,23rd June 2011