Tatas cite bill omissions Appropriate steps later, says company

Tatas cite bill omissions Appropriate steps later, says company http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110615/jsp/frontpage/story_14115632.jsp

OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT

Calcutta, June 14: Tata Motors has said the Singur land-return bill does not state the reasons for the transfer of the Nano plant, breaking its silence to portray a vivid description of the agitation that preceded its pullout without mentioning either Mamata Banerjee or her party. The Tatas added that "appropriate steps" would be taken after studying the bill that mentions Tata Motors "abandoned" the project. The bill was passed in the Bengal Assembly today amid an Opposition walkout. ( ) Tata Motors also sought to reply in detail to an assertion in the bill that people in the area around the Singur site had not benefited, no employment opportunity was generated and no socio-economic development took place. The response came in a carefully crafted statement that, sources emphasised, was not from Ratan Tata's office but from the automobile company. The sources suggested that the Tatas wanted to stick to the specific points and avoid a replay of public fencing marked by statements such as "good M and bad M" (apparently differentiating between Mamata and Narendra Modi) and "despite Mamata" (an alternative name suggested in jest for the Nano). But the statement did refer to an appeal made by Tata, without naming him, in Calcutta in 2008 to ensure a congenial atmosphere for the project to come up in Singur. The Tata Motors statement dwelt on the reference in the bill to "non-commissioning and abandoning" of the project". "The bill mentions 'non-commissioning and abandoning' of the project by Tata Motors and goes on to state that 'no employment generation and socio-economic development has taken place and people in and around the area have not benefited in any manner…'. The bill does not state the reasons for stoppage of operations and shifting of the plant," Tata Motors said. The statement did not mention who drove the company out but gave such a detailed account that it left little to the imagination. "Tata Motors wants to clarify that the operations of setting up and commissioning of the plant were conducted under very difficult conditions, amidst violence, disruption of activities, damage to property, threats to personnel. "An appeal was made on August 22, 2008, for a congenial environment, which was rebuffed with an escalation of hostilities through a blockade on the highway, more incidents of physical assault and intimidation of personnel. Therefore, Tata Motors did not find the situation congenial to continue its operations and, there being no guarantee of a safe and peaceful environment, had to reluctantly close operations on October 3, 2008, and eventually moved out." The statement referred to the investments the company as well as prospective vendors had made in the Singur project, giving a sneak preview of the possible figure Tata Motors could cite if and when it applies for compensation. The company put its investments in immobile assets at Rs 440 crore and that of the vendors at Rs 171 crore. According to the bill, only Tata Motors will be eligible for compensation, not the vendors who will be repaid the lease premium after deducting rent arrears, if any. Unlike the Tatas, most vendors had not entered into a formal lease agreement with the WBIDC, the then custodian of the land. "The company had invested nearly Rs 1,800 crore in establishing the plant. All the equipment had been installed in the plant and trial production had begun. The company still has buildings, sheds and infrastructure on the plot on which it has invested about Rs 440 crore. As for the vendor park, 13 vendors had constructed plant buildings while 17 others were at various stages of construction. The vendors had invested about Rs 171 crore," the Tata Motors statement said. The statement indirectly contested the claim in the bill that no benefit accrued from the project. "In keeping with the tradition of the Tata Group, Tata Motors began a comprehensive community development programme at Singur in December 2006, even before the plant's construction began, comprising development of employability, self-employment of the community, health and education. Eventually, about 767 individuals were trained. "About 102 health clinics were run, treating over 17,000 patients till the activity was forcibly stopped. Adjacent schools were supported with necessary infrastructure. Men and women in the area were supported to acquire means of self-employment," the statement said. The company also reminded Bengal of the loss of prospective job opportunities. "Had the project been allowed to flourish, the plant would have initially directly employed 2,000 persons, and in a cascading manner created employment in excess of 10,000 jobs amongst the vendors and service providers in the vicinity of the plant, as can be seen at the new location of the project," the statement said. Tata Motors ended its version by stressing that it pulled out with extreme reluctance. "It was an immensely painful decision for the company to pull out the project, forced by the circumstances that prevailed,"  the statement added. Vendors & the willing restive SAMBIT SAHA Chief minister Mamata Banerjee flashes the victory sign with Akul Chandra Das (left), an "unwilling farmer" whose 26 uncollected cheques for as many plots are mentioned in the Singur land-return bill, after the legislation was passed in the Assembly on Tuesday. Das and several other unwilling farmers were in the visitors' gallery of the House when the bill was passed. Picture by Sanat Kumar Sinha Calcutta, June 14: Sections of vendors and "willing" farmers have alleged discrimination over the Singur bill, suggesting that they may move court if the state government does not address their concerns. Vendors demanded that they be compensated for the investment made at the Nano site. But the government, which has specifically said in the bill that "none of the vendors has obtained any deed of lease in terms of their respective letters of allotment", has so far mentioned compensation for only Tata Motors. The government, which feels that the vendors have a weak case, tightened the screws today by adding to the compensation clause an amendment that specifically mentions "land leased to Tata Motors". "We will seek appropriate compensation for our investments in Singur from the Bengal government. We are not asking to be compensated for loss of profits, only the basic investments made at the start of the Nano project," Surinder Kapur, the CMD of Sona Koyo Steering Systems, told The Telegraph. Around 13 vendors, including Caparo Engineering, Bosch Chassis Systems, Gabriel, Lumax Industries, Kinetic Engineering, Sona Koyo Steering Systems, Exide, Tata Ryerson, Rico Engineering, have constructed plant buildings on the site while 17 others were at various stages of construction. The vendors had made a cumulative investment of Rs 171 crore, according to a statement issued by Tata Motors. The Singur bill states that Tata Motors would be compensated for the investments it made. As for the vendors, the government would refund the premium (initial down payment of Rs 15-20 lakh an acre) paid by them at the time of land allotment after deducting lease rental arrears, if any. The bill does not mention compensation for the vendors for the sunk cost. The state government feels that as no lease agreement was signed with the vendors, it is not contractually bound to pay the sunk cost. Kapur, however, challenged the notion. "If the government does not recognise the investments Sona Koyo made, the company will go to court. We may not have signed an agreement but we paid premium and rentals," he said. The vendors were given "permissive possession" to work, not the land lease. The formal agreement was not signed because of a case in Calcutta High Court. "We have invested Rs 30 to 40 crore to develop the land and hope the government will return what we spent," said an executive from a vendor who did not wished to be named, adding the company would appeal to a court if necessary. Another flank of discontent has opened with farmers who had given the land demanding that they also be given plots back . Udayan Ghosh, the president of the Singur Shilpa Banchao Committee, a forum of owners that took compensation and is apparently backed by the Left Front, said: "We gave up land because the state invoked the Land Acquisition Act of 1984. Under this, owners can only dispute the amount of compensation but not stop acquisition. Around 11,000 people followed the law. Those who did not are being rewarded today." He said the bill did not mention rehabilitation of those who gave land. "Money was one part. But we were hoping to get jobs in Tata Motors or with vendors. Some would have got space in the market place the government was building. Others would have benefited from the economic activity generated. But they have got nothing after the Tata pullout," he added. Ghosh said some of the owners would go to court. "Let the government give the land back to us as well. If industry has to come up, it should buy directly from us," said an owner who took compensation. The state had paid between Rs 8 lakh and Rs 13 lakh per acre to the owners, depending on the proximity of the plot to the highway and its fertility. However, the prices have jumped at least six times since then. ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY JAYATI GHOSH IN DELHI