Authority: High Court of Odisha, Cuttack

Order Date: 21.08.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Limited and another, represented by Advocate Mr. Sudarshan Nanda.
  • Opposite Parties: State of Odisha and another, represented by Additional Government Advocate Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, AGA.
  • Writ Petition: W.P.(C) No.8538 of 2016, CNR No. ODHC010357112016, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging:
  • Resolution No.11011/WR dated 18.05.2015 and Resolution No.24011 dated 03.11.2015 issued by the Department of Water Resources, Government of Odisha.
  • Demands made via letters dated 10.06.2015, 16.07.2015, and 13.11.2015 directing the petitioner to pay Rs 36.78 crore (calculated at Rs 2.50 crore per cusec for an allocated 14.71 cusec of water) in five equal installments over five years as a one‑time contribution to the Water Conservation Fund for its Beneficiation cum Pelletisation Plant at Barbil, Keonjhar.
  • Relief Sought: Declaration that the resolutions are unconstitutional and contrary to the Orissa Irrigation Act, 1959; quashing of the payment demands; issuance of a rule NISI or absolute rule if the opposite parties fail to show cause; and costs.
  • Legal Precedents Cited: The petitioner relied on two earlier judgments of this Court:

1. M/s. Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. & another Vs. State of Orissa (W.P.(C) No.6227 of 2016), disposed on 25 March 2021.

2. M/s. Vedanta Limited, Kalahandi Vs. State of Odisha (W.P.(C) No.15071 of 2017), disposed on 20 April 2023.

  • The Additional Government Advocate concurred that the issues are similar to those precedents.

Final Outcome

  • The Court, after hearing counsel for both sides, disposed of the writ petition in accordance with the decisions in Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. and Vedanta Limited cases.
  • Consequently, all pending Interlocutory Applications (including I.A. No.8198 of 2026) stand disposed of.
  • No order was made granting the reliefs sought by the petitioner; the demand for Rs 36.78 crore remains upheld.

Topics: Water Allocation, Legal Dispute