Fresh investments in Bengal only after hostility ends: Tata

This was the first statement by Tata regarding investments in Bengal after the Mamata Banerjee government came to power.

His remarks came after shareholders continued to pose questions on investments in the state in the changed circumstances when a new government was at the helm of affairs.

Tata said new investments in the state would come “when opportunities are right”.

On the Nano small car project in Singur,from where the company pulled out in October 2008 after stiff opposition from villagers and the Trinamool Congress,Tata said the plant was set up because of a feeling for the state as this part of the country was ignored and not because of any “ulterior motive”.

He said the small car factory would have brought about development in the region. “I think we would have created about 8,000 jobs in and around the region if the plant were fully operational. So I think it was good for the state. We would not have exploited anybody who did not wish to participate in it,” Tata said.

Referring to the Rs 300-crore Tata Cancer Hospital as a “reflection of their affection to the state”,he said the company had nothing against West Bengal.

“So we have no bad feelings. People ask me what plans I have for West Bengal at the present moment…We do not have any plans but there is nothing negative,” he said.

He said half of the beds at the hospital would be free. Also,a research centre would bring more doctors to Kolkata,he said.

On the litigation between Tata Motors and the state government before the Calcutta High Court over 997 acres of land in Singur,Tata said he should not make a statement since the matter was sub judice. He,however,went on to say that “there is an ordinance enacted (Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Bill) and we have said that allocation of land should not be done before the court decides” the matter.

Ruling out any direct talks with Singur farmers,Tata said there was no point as the state government had only leased the land to the company.

“It is a question between them and the government. We are lessee (users) of the land not the owners of the land,” he said pointing that the land was given to them by a “legal state government”.