Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Vedanta Limited vs The Nominated Authority Ministry Of ... on 7 February, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1664/2026
M/S VEDANTA LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Naveen Kumar, Mr. Ujjwal
Kumar Rai, Mr. Bikram Dwivedi, Mr.
Sudhanshu Pathak, Mr Aditya Goyal,
Mr. Rishabh Chaudhari, Ms Isha
Baloni, Mr, Lakshay Singh and Ms.
Pragya Prachi Pandey, Advocates.
versus
THE NOMINATED AUTHORITY MINISTRY OF COAL
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ankur Mittal, CGSC with Mr.
Aviraj Pandey, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 07.02.2026 CM APPL. 8070/2026 (EXEMPTION LENGTHY LIST OF DATES) CM APPL. 8071/2026 (EXEMPTION- DIM DOCUMENTS)
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 1664/2026 and CM APPL. 8069/2026
1. The petitioner was declared as the successful bidder, and thereby allocated, the Radhikapur (West) Coal Mine by respondent no.1 in accordance with the Government of India office Memorandum dated This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/02/2026 at 20:30:35 23.12.2020. On 11.01.2021, the Coal Mine Development and Production Agreement ("CMPDA") was executed between the President of India and the petitioner, formalising the agreement, and providing for various milestones and deadlines.
2. The respondent no. 1 issued an Appropriation Order dated 21.07.2025 under Clause 6.3 of the CMPDA, directing the appropriation of the Performance Bank Guarantee dated 15.06.2022 (as amended on 25.09.2025) submitted by the petitioner of approx. INR 29 Crores ("Appropriation Order"), on grounds that the petitioner has violated Milestone MS-3.
3. This Appropriation Order, it is claimed, was passed without considering, inter alia, that vide representation dated 23.05.2025, the petitioner had invoked Clause 25 (Force Majeure) of the CMDPA. Challenging the Appropriation Order, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) 10686/2025, which came to be disposed of via order dated 02.12.2025, whereby, the petitioner was directed to avail appropriate remedies before the Special Tribunal ("Special Tribunal") under Section 27 of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 ("the Act"). Paragraph nos. 12 to 13 and 18 to 21 of the said order, are extracted as under:
"12. In view of the aforesaid principles, it is incumbent on the petitioner to show that their case falls within any of exceptions, i.e., fraud, irretrievable injustice, and special equities. The Nominated Authority/respondent No.1 has passed the impugned appropriation order primarily based on the failure of the petitioner to operationalise the subject mine by 03.06.2025 in terms of their own undertaking submitted vide letter dated 12.08.2024 in pursuance of the recommendations of 24th Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 08- 09.08.2024. Perusal of the letter dated 12.08.2024, as reproduced hereinbefore, shows that the petitioner, despite claiming time loss for the reasons beyond its control, chose to submit the undertaking to operationalise the subject mine before the due date of 03.06.2025. It is also pertinent to note that the said undertaking was not given under This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/02/2026 at 20:30:35 protest to the recommendations of the 24th Scrutiny Committee meeting nor it is the case of the petitioner that they had taken recourse to the remedies as permissible in law to assail the recommendations of the 24th Scrutiny Committee meeting. The said recommendations were given after considering the reply of the petitioner to SCN-II submitted on 06.06.2024 wherein, similar issues were raised which were allegedly prevailing and were within the knowledge of the petitioner. Perusal of the deliberations of 24th Scrutiny Committee shows that the issues of discrepancies in boundary coordinates and transfer of EC had been agitated in response to SCN-II dated 06.06.2024 and it was observed by the Committee that no request for revision of „Zero Date‟ was made on behalf of the petitioner till that day. As already noted, that the said findings of the Committee were never assailed by the petitioner. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner, prima facie, does not fall within any of the exceptions as noted hereinbefore.
13. It is the case of the petitioner that after submission of the aforesaid undertaking to operationalise the mine vide letter dated 12.08.2024, petitioner was in discussion with the local authorities to seek clarifications regarding the issues pertaining to FC compliances, Elephant Corridor, Compensatory Afforestation and for conducting GPS (DGPS) survey; however, it is pertinent to note that these issues were well within petitioner‟s knowledge at the time of giving the said undertaking.
...
18. Similarly, reliance placed by learned Senior Counsels for the petitioner on order dated 20.06.2025 passed by Coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) 8484/2025 titled as "M/s JSW Cement Limited v. Union of India & Ors." will not benefit the petitioner, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court in Trimula Industries Limited (supra) which pertains to Section 27 of the CM (SP) Act, 2015, and is binding on this Court.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in facts and circumstances of the present case, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail its alternate efficacious remedy in accordance with Section 27 of the CM (SP) Act, 2015, before the concerned learned Tribunal situated at Talchar, Odisha, within a period of 10 days from today.
20. It is further directed, till that time, interim order dated 23.07.2025 passed by this Court directing maintenance of status quo with respect to Performance Bank Guarantee No. 1637622BG0000209 dated 15.06.2022 (amended on 25.09.2025) shall continue to operate. It is clarified that this extension of interim order is for ten days or till the time the petitioner approaches learned Tribunal under the aforesaid provision, whichever is earlier. It is further directed that the Bank Guarantee should be kept alive.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/02/2026 at 20:30:35
21. Needless to state that, nothing stated hereinabove, should be construed as an expression of opinion (prima facie or otherwise) as to the merits of the dispute. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved."
4. It is thus seen that earlier the order of status quo was passed which was directed to be maintained for a period of 10 days. Assailing the said order, the petitioner preferred L.P.A no. 759/2025. The said L.P.A. was disposed of vide order 10.12.2025 with the following observations.
"7. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn our attention to certain observations made by learned Single Judge in the impugned order, wherein it has been provided that appeal shall be preferred within 10 days and till that time the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge directing maintenance of the status quo with respect to the Performance Bank Guarantee, shall continue to operate. The learned Single Judge has also clarified that extension of interim order is for a period of 10 days or till the time the party concerned approaches the Tribunal.
8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the interim protection granted by learned Single Judge may be extended till the disposal of the stay application, which may be filed while raising the dispute under Section 27 (3) of the said Act.
9. Accordingly, we provide that if any application for stay is preferred while raising the dispute under Section 27 (3) of the Act, the authority concerned shall decide the same as well, with expedition and till disposal of such stay application, the impugned protection granted by learned Single Judge shall continue to operate.
10. We make it clear that in case the dispute is not raised under Section 27 (3) of the said Act within time as stipulated by learned Single Judge in the impugned order, benefit of this order shall not be available to the appellant."
5. In terms of para. 9 of the L.P.A order, the Court has directed that if the application for stay is preferred by the petitioner, the concerned Special Tribunal will decide the same with due expedition and till the disposal of the stay application, the protection granted by the Single Judge was directed to remain in operation. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the Appropriation Order under Section 27 of the Act, before the Special Tribunal in Case No. This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/02/2026 at 20:30:35 28 of 2025.
6. In Case No. 28 of 2022, the Special Tribunal vide orders dated 10.12.2025 and 13.01.2026 passed an interim order for the maintenance of status quo of the Performance Bank Guarantee, and the said order is still in operation.
7. During the pendency of the said case, another show cause notice dated 15.12.2025 ("SCN") has been issued by respondent no.1 proposing the termination of the CMDPA, and consequential encashment of the entire bank gurantee. Mr. Mittal, however, submits that the same is in exclusion to the part of the amounts, the encashment of which, have been stayed by the Special Tribunal.
8. Be that as it may, the Court as of now is not concerned with the issues whether it was for the entire amount or of the excluded amount as stated above. The Court is rather moved to adjudicate upon the Impugned Orders dated 22.12.2025 and 02.12.2026 passed by the Special Tribunal in Case No. 31 of 2025. This Case No. 31 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner before the Special Tribunal challenging the SCN.
9. It would be apporiate to take note of the fact that the petitioner had also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC in Case No. 31 of 2025, through which the petitioner sought an ex parte ad interim stay on the operation of the SCN. This application came to be rejected vide the first Impugned Order dated 22.12.2025, wherein, the Special Tribunal reasoned that a stay cannot be directed without hearing the other side, notably, however, the said application is pending till date. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a writ petition before this Court bearing W.P.(C) No. 19814/2025 (hereinafter "Pending Writ") wherein it again challenged the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/02/2026 at 20:30:35 SCN.
10. In the Pending Writ, the Division Bench [Vacation Bench] on 26.12.2025 granted a stay on the operation of the SCN, till the next date of hearing therein, which was scheduled for 07.01.2026. Thereafter, the Special Tribunal, vide order dated 02.01.2026, noted that in light of the stay order passed by the Court, there is no need to pass any prohibitory order restraining the respondents. In the interregnum, on 13.01.2026, the Special Tribunal has further adjourned the matter, awaiting the appearance of the opposite parties nos. 1 to 4 therein. The matter has now been posted by the Special Tribunal for 12.02.2026.
11. Respondent nos.1 to 3 then filed an application for vacating the stay in W.P.(C) No. 19814/2025. Mr. Mittal submits that the said writ petition was last listed before the Division Bench on 05.02.2026. Mr. Gupta submits that on 05.02.2026, he had pointed out to the Division Bench, that the present writ assailing the Impugned Orders has been filed.
12. Various submissions have been made by learned counsel appearing for the parties.
13. Mr. Ankur Mittal, however, raises a fundamental question relating to the maintainability of the instant writ petition on the ground that the petitioner ought to have challenged the Impugned Orders before the jurisdiction High Court i.e., in Orissa. He submits that the mines in question are situated in Orissa. The Tribunal is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of High Court of Orrisa and the validity of the order passed by the Tribunal will have to be examined by the jurisdictional High Court i.e., in Orissa. He seeks to place reliance on various decisions of this Court.
14. On the contrary, Mr. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/02/2026 at 20:30:35 petitioner, submits that the application for stay filed by the petitioner is still pending for consideration before the Special Tribunal. He submits that under almost similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.(C) No. 19080/2025 has protected the rights of the petitioner therein till the stay application is decided.
15. He submits that this Court, while passing the aforesaid order had relied upon the order passed in the case of the present petitioner itself. He, therefore, contends that there is no reason as to why similar benefits should not be conferred to the petitioner.
16. Having noted the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Court is of the prima facie opinion that the grievance if any, which the petitioner has against the Impugned Orders, must be agitated before the the jurisdictional High Court i.e., at Orissa.
17. However, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Court defers the hearing of the present petition till 09.02.2026 to enable the parties to take instructions and to assist the Court. Mr. Mittal to also take instructions as to why the contesting respondents are not being represented before the Special Tribunal.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J FEBRUARY 7, 2026/P/Rao This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/02/2026 at 20:30:35