After Tata Motors claimed pilferage of material from the abandoned Nano plant in Singur,the Calcutta High Court on Thursday asked the Hooghly District Magistrate to file a report on the prevailing situation by Friday morning. Tata Motors has challenged the Singur Act in the High Court,claiming it is illegal and unconstitutional. It has also sought a stay on the government action taking possession of the 645 acres of land leased to the company for setting up a small car plant. Tata counsel Samaraditya Pal told the court that valuable items were looted from the site after the government took over the land. Pal showed newspaper photographs and submitted a CD suggesting loot at the Singur site to buttress his claim. Advocate General Anindya Mitra had assured the court on Wednesday that adequate security would be deployed to maintain peace. Following the Tatas submission,Justice Soumitra Pal directed the Hooghly district magistrate to file a report on the security arrangements and the prevailing situation on Friday when the case will come up for hearing again. Justice Pal,however,refused to pass any interim order to stay the state government action at the site. Tata counsel Pal argued,Even if it was assumed the Singur Act was valid,the way it was enforced was not reasonable and led to looting of valuable inventories. The state cant do whatever it likes,said Pal adding,the Singur Act was arbitrary,discretionary and unreasonable and it violated the Article 14 of the Constitution. Opposing the Tatas plea,government counsel Kalyan Bandopadhyay said the state exercised its Constitutional powers of making an Act. But Pal countered that the state could not exercise its power in unreasonable manner. He contended the Tatas were not given enough time to take away its inventories and before the company could do so,the district magistrate took possession of the land. Advocate General Anindya Mitra said Pals argument was not consistent with the companys petition. In its petition,Mitra argued,the Tatas mentioned that it was unlawfully restrained from getting inside the plant premise but in its submission it argued that it was unlawfully dis-possessed of the land.
