Cuttack, October 29, 2025:
Tata Steel Limited has approached the Orissa High Court, filing a writ petition against a massive ₹2,410.89 crore demand raised by the Deputy Director of Mines, Jajpur, in connection with alleged shortfalls in chrome ore dispatch from the company’s Sukinda Chromite Block.
The demand, issued on October 3, 2025, pertains to the fifth operational year of the Mine Development and Production Agreement (MDPA) — covering July 23, 2024, to July 22, 2025 — and alleges violation of Rule 12A of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016. The authorities claim that Tata Steel failed to meet its committed dispatch quantities, resulting in a shortfall-based penalty and forfeiture of performance security.
The total claim, amounting to over ₹2,410 crore, represents one of the largest mining-related demands in recent years. Tata Steel has categorically rejected the findings and sought judicial intervention to quash the demand.
“The company has filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Orissa High Court at Cuttack seeking quashing of the aforementioned demand letter,” Tata Steel said in its stock exchange filing.
The respondents named in the petition include the State of Odisha, the Union of India (Ministry of Mines), the Director of Mines, Odisha, and the Deputy Director of Mines, Jajpur.
Tata Steel’s filing emphasizes that it has complied with all obligations under the MDPA and that the shortfall assessment is arbitrary and inconsistent with operational realities. The company maintains that the alleged shortfall resulted from logistical constraints and regulatory delays, rather than willful non-dispatch.
Industry observers say the case underscores the ongoing friction between state mining departments and operators over interpretation of production norms. Given the scale of the claim, the outcome could have implications for future mining leases and concession agreements.
The matter also comes at a time when Tata Steel is restructuring its operations to optimize its mining and raw material portfolios. Legal experts believe that the court’s interpretation of the MDPA’s dispatch clauses will set a precedent for similar disputes involving mineral resource development.
The writ petition’s admission marks the first step in what could be a protracted legal battle. The company, however, reaffirmed its commitment to lawful and sustainable mining practices, stating: “We remain confident of our compliance and will vigorously defend our position in court.”