LPA 83/2026 & LPA 84/2026 Page 1 of 17

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment Reserved on: 23.02.2026

% Judgment Delivered on: 10.04.2026

+ LPA 83/2026, CM Nos. 12280/2026, 12281/2026 & 12282/2026

M/S VEDANTA LIMITED .....Appellant

Versus

THE NOMINATED AUTHORITY MINISTRY OF COAL

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

AND

+ LPA 84/2026, CM Nos.12316/2026, 12317/2026 & 12318/2026

THE NOMINATED AUTHORITY MINISTRY OF COAL

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR. .....Appellants

Versus

M/S VEDANTA LIMITED .....Respondent

Advocates who appeared in these cases

Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar, Mr.

Ujjawal Kumar Rai, Mr. Aditya Goyal, Mr. Sudhanshu Pathak, Mr.

Bikram Dwivedi, Ms. Isha Baloni, Mr. Rishabh Chaudhary, Mr.

Lakshay Singh & Ms. Pragya Prachi Pandey, Advocates for Vedanta

Limited.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, CGSC with Mr. Keshav Pawar, GP; Mr. Aviraj

Pandey and Ms. Rabaica Jaiswal, Advocates for UoI.

LPA 83/2026 & LPA 84/2026 Page 2 of 17

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

JUDGMENT

TEJAS KARIA, J

1.These Appeals have been filed challenging the orders dated

07.02.2026 and 09.02.2026 (“Impugned Orders”) passed in W.P.(C)

No.1664/2026 (“Writ Petition”) tilted as “M/sVedanta Ltd. v. The

Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Government of India & Ors.”

whereby the Writ Petition challenging the orders dated 22.12.2025 and

02.01.2026 passed by the Special Tribunal, Talcher, Odisha in Special

Tribunal Case No.31/2025 was disposed of by holding that the Appellant

shall agitate its grievance before the jurisdictional High Court and granted

status quoqua any precipitative action till the stay application is adjudicated

by the Tribunal.

2.The Impugned Orders have been challenged by Vedanta Ltd.

(“Vedanta”) in LPA No.83/2026 and by the Nominated Authority, Ministry

of Coal, Government of India (“Nominated Authority”) in LPA

No.84/2026.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3.The Nominated Authority issued a tender on 18.06.2020 for auction

of coal mines for sale of coal pertaining to Radhikapur (West) Coal Mine

under the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2025 (“Act”).

LPA 83/2026 & LPA 84/2026 Page 3 of 17

4.Vedanta was successful bidder and a Coal Mine Development and

Production Agreement (“CMDPA”) was executed between the President of

India and Vedanta on 11.01.2021. Accordingly, the Vesting Order was

issued by the Nominated Authority on 03.03.2021.

5.The CMDPA prescribed efficiency parameters and milestones to be

completed within the timelines stipulated against each of the milestones.

The Nominated Authority issued first Show Cause Notice (“SCN-I”) to

Vedanta for non-compliance of Milestone 2 (Mining Plan) on 08.02.2022.

Vedanta submitted its reply to SCN-I on 21.02.2022 citing reasons including

delay due to Covid-19 pandemic and issues relating to mine boundary

coordinates. On 18.01.2023, the Nominated Authority dropped SCN-I based

on the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee.

6.On 06.06.2024, second Show Cause Notice (“SCN-II”) was issued by

the Nominated Authority regarding delay in achievement of Milestone-3 and

non-operationalization of mine. Vedanta submitted reply to SCN-II on

20.06.2024 stating issues with FC, EC, boundary coordinates, DGPS survey

and sought further time. The Scrutiny Committee examined the reply of

Vedanta to SCN-II and recorded that the issues raised by Vedanta were

already within its knowledge and Vedanta never applied for revision of Zero

Date. Vedanta did not protest the Scrutiny Committee’s findings and

furnished the voluntary undertaking to operationalize the mine by

03.06.2025.

7.Despite the expiry of the deadline agreed by Vedanta for

operationalization of the mine on 03.06.2025, Vedanta did not meet the

deadline. Accordingly, the Nominated Authority issued Appropriation Order

dated 21.07.2025 appropriating ₹29.23 crores from the Performance Bank

LPA 83/2026 & LPA 84/2026 Page 4 of 17

Guarantee (“PBG”). On 22.07.2025, Vedanta submitted a protest letter

objecting to the appropriation order and filed W.P.(C) No.10686/2025

before this Court challenging the appropriation order.

8.VideJudgment dated 02.12.2025, the said Writ Petition was disposed

of with liberty to Vedanta to avail alternative efficacious remedy in

accordance with Section 27 of the Act before the concerned Tribunal

situated at Talcher, Odisha within a period of 10 days from the date of said

Judgment and in the meanwhile, it was directed that thestatus quowith

respect to the PBG shall continue to operate.

9.Vedanta filed LPA No.759/2025 against the Judgment dated

02.12.2025 andvideorder dated 10.12.2025, the Coordinate Bench of this

Court disposed of the said appeal with a direction that if Vedanta files any

application for stay while raising a dispute under Section 27(3) of the Act,

the interim protection granted by the learned Single Judge for the period of

10 days from the date of Judgment dated 02.12.2025 shall continue to

operate till disposal of such stay application provided Vedanta raises the

dispute under Section 27(3) of the Act within 10 days from Judgment dated

02.12.2025.

10.Accordingly, Vedanta filed S.T. Case No.28/2025 before the Special

Tribunal at Talcher under Section 27 of the Act challenging the

appropriation orders dated 21.07.2025 on 10.12.2025. Vide order dated

10.12.2025, the Tribunal issued summons to the Nominated Authority and

directed that the status quo in respect of the Performance Bank Guarantee

granted by this Court shall continue till 20.12.2025.

11.On 15.12.2025, the Nominated Authority issued a Show Cause Notice

proposing termination of CMDPA and consequential action under Clause

LPA 83/2026 & LPA 84/2026 Page 5 of 17

26.3.1(t) of CMDPA (“SCN-III”). Vedanta filed S.T. Case No.31/2025

before the Tribunal on 22.12.2025 challenging the SCN-III.Videorder dated

22.12.2025, the Tribunal admitted the case and issued the summons to the

respondents in the said proceedings and fixed the matter on 13.01.2026. As

the Tribunal did not grantex parteinterim relief, Vedanta filed W.P.(C)

No.19814/2025 before this Court challenging SCN-III.Videorder dated

26.12.2025, the Vacation Bench of this Court issued notice to the

Nominated Authority and directed the Nominated Authority to not take any

action pursuant to SCN-III till the next date of hearing in the Petition, which

was listed on 07.01.2026 before the Roster Bench. On 07.01.2026, the

matter could not be taken up and adjourned to 25.02.2026.

12.In the meanwhile, on 02.01.2026, the Tribunal adjourned S.T. Case

No.31/2025 along with the stay application to 13.01.2026.

13.The Nominated Authority filed an application for vacation of the

injunction grantedvideorder dated 26.12.2025 in W.P.(C) No.19814/2025

on 20.01.2026, on which date this Bench granted ten days to Vedanta to file

Rejoinder Affidavit as also the objection to the application for vacation of

the stay and preponed the hearing of the matter to 05.02.2026.

14.During the pendency of W.P.(C) No.19814/2025, Vedanta filed the

Writ Petition challenging the orders dated 22.12.2025 and 02.01.2026

passed in S.T. Case No.31/2025 before the single judge of this Court on

01.02.2026.

15.When W.P.(C) No.19814/2025 along with the application for vacating

the interim injunction filed by the Nominated Authority was listed on

05.02.2026 before this Bench, the learned Senior Counsel for Vedanta

informed about filing of the Writ Petition and sought time to seek

LPA 83/2026 & LPA 84/2026 Page 6 of 17

instructions for withdrawing W.P.(C) No.19814/2025. Accordingly, on

09.02.2025, W.P.(C) No.19814/2025 was withdrawn in view of the

proceedings in the Writ Petition.

16.On 07.02.2016 and 09.02.2026, the learned Single Judge has passed

the Impugned Orders and being aggrieved by the same, the present Appeals

have been preferred by Vedanta and the Nominated Authority, respectively.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE VEDANTA

17.Vedanta has challenged the Impugned Orders to the limited extent

that the same held that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain

the Writ Petition against the Nominated Authority since the mine as well as

the Tribunal is situated in Odisha.

18.Learned Senior Counsel for Vedanta submitted that this Court has the

territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Writ Petition against the

orders passed by the Nominated Authority irrespective of the location of the

mine and the seat of the Tribunal under the Act. This Court has exercised

jurisdiction in several writ petitions, in which orders passed by the Tribunal

under Section 27 of the Act were challenged although the mines as well as

the Tribunal were not situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

19.It was further submitted that even the orders passed by the Tribunal in

the appeal against the original order by the Nominated Authority can be

challenged before this Court as the Nominated Authority, which passed the

original order, is within the jurisdiction of this Court. In support of this

submission reliance was placed onChinteshwar Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of

India, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4744, wherein this Court has held that when

original authority is situated in one High Court and the Appellate Authority

is situated in the jurisdiction of another High Court, writ petition is

LPA 83/2026 & LPA 84/2026 Page 7 of 17

maintainable in both the High Courts as a part of cause of action can be said

to have arisen in both the courts. It was further held that the petitioner would

have the liberty to choose where he would like to file his writ petition,

however, the High Court before whom the said writ petition is filed would

have the discretion to refuse to entertain it on the ground of forum

conveniens.

20.Learned Senior Counsel for Vedanta submitted that the Impugned

Orders are contrary to the law laid down inChinteshwar Steel Pvt. Ltd. v.

Union of India(supra) as Vedanta will be precluded from filing any writ

petition before this Court despite the fact that entire cause of action

including conduct of auction, acceptance of bid, allocation of coal block,

execution of CMDPA, issuance of Vesting Order, issuance of Show Cause

Notice, submission of reply to the Show Cause Notice, proceedings held by

the Scrutiny Committee, decision to appropriate PBG and to initiate

termination of CMDPA have taken in New Delhi and the Nominated

Authority is having its permanent office solely within the territorial

jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, this Court will have jurisdiction to

entertain the Writ Petition, and the Impugned Orders have wrongly decided

to the contrary.

21.It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to

appreciate that there was neither any pleading nor any material that was

placed by the Nominated Authority on record before the learned Single

Judge to show as to how this Court has no jurisdiction or it is not a

convenient forum forthe Nominated Authority.

22.This Court vide order dated 10.12.2025 passed in LPA No.759/2025

had granted interim relief against the appropriation of the Performance Bank

LPA 83/2026 & LPA 84/2026 Page 8 of 17

Guarantee till the matter is decided by the Tribunal, which is still pending.

The Nominated Authority did not take the objection of lack of territorial

jurisdiction of this Court when the said order was passed. Accordingly, the

Writ Petition challenging the orders dated 22.12.2025 and 02.01.2026

passed by the Tribunal in S.T. Case No.31/2025 challenging the Show

Cause Notice dated 15.12.2025 is maintainable before this Court.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE NOMINATED AUTHORITY

23.The Nominated Authority has challenged the Impugned Orders on the

limited aspect of grant of interim protection to Vedanta despite holding that

this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition.

24.The learned Counsel for the Nominated Authority submitted that

despite expressly agreeing with the contention of the Nominated Authority

that this Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to

orders passed by the Tribunal at Talcher, Odisha, the Impugned Orders

grantedstatus quoqua any precipitative action against Vedanta till

adjudication of the stay application pending before the Tribunal.

25.It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in

granting interim protection to Vedanta by referring to previous interim

protection granted while recording that any challenge to the orders passed by

the Tribunal situated at Talcher, Odisha would lie before the jurisdictional

High Court. Accordingly, the Impugned Orders suffers from patent

jurisdictional contradiction as they declined to exercise jurisdiction on one

hand, while exercising it to restrain statutory and contractual action against

Vedanta, on the other.

26.It was submitted on behalf of the Nominated Authority that Vedanta

has repeatedly invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court instead of pursuing

LPA 83/2026 & LPA 84/2026 Page 9 of 17

alternative remedies within the statutory framework of the Act. Vedanta has,

deliberately and with calculated attempt, invoked the jurisdiction of this

Court notwithstanding express direction by this Court to pursue remedies

before the jurisdictional forum.

27.It was further submitted that the Impugned Orders are without

jurisdiction as the same are passed without considering the merits of the

matter. The learned Single Judge has granted substantive interim protection

without recording any satisfaction of the settled trinity test ofprima facie

case, balance of convenience or irreparable injury.

28.It was submitted that the learned Single Judge after holding that he

had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition, nonetheless

granted protection to Vedanta thereby allowing it to be a beneficiary of

repeated forum shopping and serial invocation of writ jurisdiction before

this Court, which itself has held that it lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the

Writ Petition.

29.The learned Counsel for the Nominated Authority submitted that the

interim protection grantedvidethe Impugned Orders was neither warranted

in equity nor sanctioned by law. As a result of passing of the Impugned

Orders, the Show Cause Notice dated 15.12.2025 has been stayed, rendering

the Nominated Authority unable to proceed further until the adjudication of

the stay application by the Tribunal. The Impugned Orders are contrary to

the well settled law laid down by catena of judgments of the Supreme Court

as well as this Court that a Show Cause Notice ought not to be interdicted

unless it is issued without jurisdiction or constitutes a gross abuse of the

process. As no such case was pleaded, demonstrated orprima facie

recorded in the Impugned Orders, the same are liable to be set aside to the

LPA 83/2026 & LPA 84/2026 Page 10 of 17

extent that they grant the interim protection to Vedanta while holding that

this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition.

30.The learned Counsel for the Nominated Authority relied upon

Okinawa Autotech International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India, 2024

SCC OnLine Del 7180, which held that the Show Cause Notice does not

amount to a final decision and should the final decision be adverse, the

petitioner shall have right to challenge such a decision through an

appropriate legal remedy as provided by law.

31.It was submitted that the judicial interference at the stage of Show

Cause Notice is tantamount to entertaining the writ petition at a premature

stage since no adverse order has yet been passed and no right of noticee

stand affected as the writ remedy arises only upon passing of a final order

having civil consequences and not at a stage when the statutory authority is

yet to apply its mind and take a decision.

32.It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Nominated

Authority that the Impugned Orders do not evaluate or hold that Vedanta has

any enforceable legal right to restrain any action by the Nominated

Authority at the Show Cause Notice stage and granting a restraint order in

absence of this basic finding was arbitrary and contrary to settled principles

governing grant of interim relief.

33.It was also submitted that permitting Vedanta to enjoy interim

protection by indulging in forum shopping to serial petitions in different

forms undermines judicial discipline, defeats statutory remedies and erodes

finality of prior directions.

34.The learned Counsel for the Nominated Authority submitted that the

orders impugned in the Writ Petition were passed by the Tribunal at Talcher,

LPA 83/2026 & LPA 84/2026 Page 11 of 17

Odisha and, therefore, only the jurisdictional High Court of Odisha could

have exercised judicial review as correctly held by the learned Single Judge.

However, the learned Single Judge could not have granted interim relief

while indirectly exercising the jurisdiction which was found to be not

existing. The statutory framework under the Act envisages adjudication by

the Tribunal at Talcher and supervisory jurisdiction by the jurisdictional

High Court within whose territory the Tribunal functions and cause of action

arises. InL. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India,(1997) 3 SCC 261, it has

been held that the Tribunals will continue to act like courts of first instance

in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted and all

decisions of these Tribunals will be subject to scrutiny before a Division

Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned

falls.

35.It was further submitted that the Impugned Orders bypass the

jurisdictional High Court and permit Vedanta to continue to enjoy the

interim relief granted by a non-jurisdictional High Court merely because

previously interim protection was granted there, thereby defeating territorial

discipline and comity between High Courts.

36.It was submitted on behalf of the Nominated Authority that the

learned Single Judge failed to consider that parallel proceedings on the same

subject matter cannot be permitted especially when Vedanta has already

invoked the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and simultaneously invoked writ

jurisdiction.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

37.The present Appeals raise two important issues for consideration by

this Court.Firstly, whether this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to

LPA 83/2026 & LPA 84/2026 Page 12 of 17

entertain and decide the Writ Petition challenging the orders passed by the

Tribunal, which is not located within the jurisdiction of this Court, in the

proceedings challenging the Show Cause Notice issued by the Nominated

Authority situated within the jurisdiction of this Court andsecondly, whether

this Court has power to grant interim measures while refusing to entertain

the Writ Petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Re: Territorial Jurisdiction:

38.As regards the first issue, the learned Single Judge in the Impugned

Orders has held that in the facts of the present case, the relief sought by the

Appellant before this Court cannot be granted since the Tribunal, which

passed the orders that were challenged by way of the Writ Petition, is not

located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The Appellant has

invoked the jurisdiction of this Court on the basis that SCN-II was issued by

the Nominated Authority within the jurisdiction of this Court.

39.To confer the jurisdiction on this Court for exercising the writ

jurisdiction, it is necessary that either the authority or appellate authority is

situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The Appellant sought

to argue that since the Nominated Authority is located within the jurisdiction

of this Court, which issued SCN-III, this Court ought to have exercised the

jurisdiction as held inChinteshwar Steel Pvt. Ltd.(supra),wherein it is held

that when the original authority and appellate authority are situated in two

different High Courts, both High Courts shall have jurisdiction to entertain

the writ petition.

40.It is settled law that when original authority is situated within the

jurisdiction of one High Court and the Appellate Authority situated in the

jurisdiction of another High Court, writ petition is maintainable in both the

LPA 83/2026 & LPA 84/2026 Page 13 of 17

High Courts as a part of cause of action can be said to have arisen within

jurisdiction of both the High Courts and the petitioner would be at liberty to

choose where he would like to file his writ petition, however, the High Court

before whom the said writ petition is filed would have the discretion to

refuse to entertain it on the ground offorum conveniens.

41.InSterling Agro Industries Ltd v. Union of India and Others,2011

SCC OnLine Del 3162, the Full Bench of this Court has held that even if a

minuscule part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of a High

Court, a writ would be maintainable before that High Court, however that

part of cause of action must constitute a material, essential, or integral part

of the cause of action as laid down inAlchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of

Sikkim,(2007) 11 SCC 335. It was further held that the location of the

appellate or revisional authority alone would not constitute forum

convenience as it will vary from case to case and depend upon the lis in

question. Therefore, it was held that while exercising the writ jurisdiction,

the doctrine of forum convenience and the nature of cause of action are

required to be scrutinized by the High Court depending on the factual matrix

of each case.

42.In the facts of the present case, the Nominated Authority has not

passed any order and has only issued SCN-III proposing termination of

CMDPA and consequential action under Clause 26.3.1(t) of CMDPA. SCN-

III has been challenged in S.T. Case No.31/2025 before the Tribunal. As the

Tribunal did not grant interim relief vide order dated 22.12.2025, Vedanta

filed W.P.(C) No.19814/2025 before this Court challenging SCN-III, which

was withdrawn in view of Writ Petition challenging order dated 22.12.2025

passed by the Tribunal in S.T. Case No.31/2025.

LPA 83/2026 & LPA 84/2026 Page 14 of 17

43.The challenge in the Writ Petition pertains to the Tribunal's order

dated 22.12.2025, which denied interim relief with respect to SCN-III. There

was no contest to SCN-III itself. Consequently, the presence of the

Nominated Authority within this Court’s jurisdiction offers no benefit to the

Appellant, as the issuance of SCN-III did not constitute a decision that

would provide Vedanta grounds to pursue a Writ Petition. The Writ Petition

is specifically directed against orders issued by the Tribunal. Therefore,

Vedanta’s assertion that part of the cause of action arose within this Court’s

jurisdiction due to SCN-III being issued by the Nominated Authority located

here is untenable, since the issuance of SCN-III is not under challenge. The

order under challenge in the Writ Petition has been passed by the Tribunal,

which falls outside this Court’s jurisdiction.

44.It is established law that a show cause notice does not amount to a

final determination, and if an adverse final decision is rendered, the

petitioner retains the right to seek an appropriate legal remedy, as affirmed

inOkinawa Autotech(supra).

45.Accordingly, the Nominated Authority has not passed any order

which is in appeal before the Tribunal and, therefore, the law laid down in

Chinteshwar Steel(supra) that when original authority and the appellate

authority are situated in two different High Courts, both High Courts will

have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and it is the petitioner who

would have liberty to chose the High Court in which the petition is to be

filed, will not apply in the facts of the present case. As SCN-III only called

upon the Appellant to submit response in writing within 15 days of the

receipt of SCN-III as to why action under Clause 10.3 read with Clause

26.3.1(t) of the CMPDA dated 11.01.2021 should not be taken by the

LPA 83/2026 & LPA 84/2026 Page 15 of 17

Nominated Authority for termination of the agreement on the ground of

public interest, the same is not an order passed by the Nominated Authority.

46.Therefore, material, essential and dominant cause of action has not

arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and, accordingly, the submission

of the Appellant that this Court ought to have exercised jurisdiction on the

basis of issuance of SCN-III within the jurisdiction of this Court is

untenable. By issuing SCN-III, no order has been passed and accordingly

forum convenience would be in the jurisdictional High Court where the

Tribunal is situated.

47.In view of the above, we concur with the view taken by the learned

Single Judge in the Impugned Orders. Hence, the Appeal filed by Vedanta

being LPA No. 83/2026 along with the pending applications deserves to be

dismissed.

Re: Grant of interim measure while dismissing the Writ Petition:

48.The grievance of the Nominated Authority in the Appeal filed by it

being LPA No. 84/2026 is that once the learned Single Judge has dismissed

the Appeal on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, no protection to

Vedanta could have been granted in form of interim relief wherebystatus

quo quaany precipitative action was directed to be maintained till the

application of stay of SCN-III is adjudicated by the Tribunal.

49.It was submitted on behalf of the Nominated Authority that the

learned Single Judge granted interim protection without duly recording

satisfaction regarding the established trinity test:prima faciecase, balance

of convenience, and irreparable injury. Furthermore, it was submitted that

the issuance of the Impugned Orders has resulted in a stay of SCN-III,

thereby preventing the Nominated Authority from proceeding further. It was

LPA 83/2026 & LPA 84/2026 Page 16 of 17

also contended that allowing Vedanta to benefit from interim protection

through forum shopping has caused significant prejudice to the Nominated

Authority, as such actions could undermine judicial discipline and impede

statutory remedies.

50.The learned Senior Counsel for Vedanta has submitted that the

Impugned Orders granted limited interim protection till such time the stay

application filed by Vedanta is adjudicated by the Tribunal. Therefore, the

grant of status quo with regard to any precipitative action was justified as

otherwise the appeal filed by Vedanta before the Tribunal would have

become infructuous.

51.Upon careful consideration of the submissions made by both Parties,

we are of the view that that the Impugned Orders observe that Vedanta's

grievance should be addressed before the jurisdictional High Court given

that material and dominant cause of action did not arise within this Court's

jurisdiction. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed as it was deemed

more appropriate for Vedanta to pursue its remedy in the High Court of

Orissa, where the essential cause of action has arisen.

52.The learned Single Judge declined to exercise jurisdiction due to

considerations of forum convenience and the absence of a dominant cause of

action within this Court’s jurisdiction. Given the unique and peculiar

circumstances of the case, limited interim protection was granted to maintain

status quoregarding any precipitative actions until the adjudication of the

stay application by the Tribunal considering the previous interim orders

passed by this Court granting protection to Vedanta. Therefore, the learned

Single Judge granted interim protection for maintainingstatus quoin the

interest of justice.

LPA 83/2026 & LPA 84/2026 Page 17 of 17

53.Hence, we do not find any infirmity with the direction passed by the

learned Singel Judge in the Impugned Orders to maintainstatus quo quaany

precipitative action till such time the stay application is adjudicated by the

Tribunal as the same is limited in nature as to the scope and timing and

protects the interests of both Parties.

54.Therefore, we do not find any merit in the Appeal filed by the

Nominated Authority being LPA No. 84/2026, which also deserves to be

dismissed.

55.Accordingly, both LPA Nos. 83/2026 and 84/2026 along with

pending Application(s), if any, are hereby dismissed. There shall be no order

as to costs.

TEJAS KARIA, J

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

APRIL 10, 2026

Gsr/ap