Orissa High Court dismisses Vedanta’s plea for supply of bauxite at price as per 2004 deal

The High Court observes the company cannot seek revival of old agreements after having participated in the process initiated under the amended long term linkage policy for bauxite

Updated - October 01, 2026 10:18 pm IST - BHUBANESWAR

The Orissa High Court on Thursday (October 1, 2026) dismissed Vedanta Aluminium Limited’s plea seeking a direction to the Odisha government to make 150 million tonnes of bauxite available at the price agreed upon in 2004. Based on the assurance of a guaranteed supply of the raw material, the company had made massive investments, it claimed in the petition.

A Division Bench of the High Court, comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Judge Murahari Sri Raman, dismissed the writ petition by the Vedanta group after having found no merit in it.

In its petition, Vedanta urged that the Odisha government should respect the agreement which was entered into on October 5, 2004. The deal stipulated the supply of 150 million tonnes of bauxite at a price that stands on parity with other State-based manufacturers who benefited from captive mine operations. As per the agreement, Vedanta would bear the cost of extraction plus 50% royalty, together with other statutory dues.

Vedanta claimed, based on the State’s assurance, that it had made substantial investments for setting up alumina refinery and manufacturing plants. The company submitted that, despite the assurance, no supply of bauxite was made by the State, which caused them massive losses. The Odisha government reneged on its promise and demanded higher prices for the supply of bauxite, the company alleged. It laid the claim based on the principles of promissory estoppel, and sought for a direction by the court to the State to supply 150 million tonnes of bauxite at the assured rate.

Advocate General Pitambar Acharya appearing for the Odisha government argued that the writ petition was wholly misconceived, hopelessly barred by delay, laches, waiver and acquiescence and, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

Mr. Acharya further argued that “after termination of the Joint Venture Agreements, the company consciously accepted and acted upon the Long Term Linkage (LTL) regime framed by the State government. The termination in 2015 itself assured supply of bauxite under the prevailing LTL Policy. The company participated in the process initiated under the amended LTL policy.”

“Presently, supplies are being effected under the subsisting LTL sales agreement in 2023 valid till 2028. Thus, the conduct of the petitioner unequivocally establishes acceptance of the post-amendment of the MMDR Act in 2015 and, thereby, it abandoned right flowing from the terminated Joint Venture Agreements,” Mr. Acharya submitted.

“By way of written note of submission, the petitioner [the Vedanta group] clearly admitted to the fact that in 2018 it agreed to receive bauxite under the LTL Policy of 2018. However, it sought to revive its rights under the initial assurance being made by way of MoUs and Agreements prior to amendment to the MMDR Act in the year 2015,” said the division bench. “This is an inconsistent stand taken by the petitioner. It has been representing the Odisha government for resurrection of the Joint Venture Company (JVC) with the State-run Odisha Mining Corporation (OMC) so as to get the supply of bauxite at the old price,” the division bench observed.

“For basically two reasons, the petitioner’s claim cannot be countenanced. First, by participating in the subsequent process under the amended provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, it acquiesced by its own conduct. This is particularly so since the JVC was terminated in the presence of representatives of Sterlite/Vedanta and the OMC. The validity of the termination in 2015 was never questioned and, therefore, attained finality,” the High Court said.

It added, “the said termination remained unassailed by the petitioner at any point of time and has, thus, attained finality. After long lapse of time, the petitioner cannot seek revival or indirect enforcement of agreements.”

A Vedanta Aluminium spokesperson said, “the company is evaluating the order and the legal recourse available before it. The order does not impact the supply of bauxite to Vedanta Aluminium.”

Published - October 01, 2026 10:17 pm IST

Odisha / business (general)

Terms & conditions | Institutional Subscriber

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.