New Delhi: The Delhi High Court listed for July 27 Vedanta Ltd’s appeal against a single-judge order that upheld the Centre’s decision not to extend the production-sharing contract (PSC) for the Suvali offshore block in Gujarat, and refused to grant interim relief after noting that Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd (ONGC) has already taken over operations.
Follow The PSUWatch Channel on WhatsApp
A bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta recorded Attorney General R. Venkataramani’s submission that ONGC had assumed control following the July 22 order. Senior counsels Mukul Rohatgi and Jayant Mehta, for Vedanta, said the company has continuously operated the block since 1998 and urged directions allowing it to continue as operator. The court said it would hear arguments on Monday but declined to restore possession immediately because ONGC is part of the PSC consortium.
Venkataramani opposed interim relief, saying there was no question of returning operations to Vedanta. Vedanta issued a statement after the hearing saying, “Operations of the block have not been taken over by any party. It is status quo as the matter remains sub judice.”
The appeal challenges the single-judge’s dismissal of Vedanta’s petition against the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas’s September 19, 2025 direction rejecting Vedanta’s 2021 application to extend the PSC (originally executed June 20, 1998) for the Suvali block. The PSC, involving the Centre, Vedanta, ONGC and Invenire Petrodyne Ltd, had an original 25-year term ending June 29, 2023, and was subject to possible extensions; Vedanta sought a 10-year extension in June 2021. After five interim extensions, the last expired on September 29, 2024.
The single-judge upheld the government’s refusal, citing Vedanta’s “unilateral” deductions of the government’s share—allegedly to offset excise liabilities or protect economic benefits—as a valid reason under the extension policy to deny relief. Vedanta contends the decision violated the government’s 2017 extension policy and Article 14 by applying irrelevant criteria and failing to consider past practice and legitimate expectation of extension. The Centre defended its action as being in public interest and consistent with the Public Trust Doctrine.
Earlier on Thursday the matter was briefly heard by a bench led by Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya; it was transferred after Justice Tejas Karia recused himself. The court had earlier issued an interim order in January directing parties to maintain status quo.
(PSU Watch is India's Business News centre that places the spotlight on PSUs, Bureaucracy, Defence and Public Policy. 👉 Click to join our channel now: PSUWatch WhatsApp Channel. Prefer LinkedIn? Follow PSU Watch on LinkedIN. Click to stay connected on Twitter here and stay updated)