Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/5760/2025 of SRI GOPI DAS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. on 21 May 2026
GAHC010217112025 2026:GAU-AS:7162 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5760/2025 SRI GOPI DAS SON OF LATE JITENDRA DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAT BOINIR TUP P.O. BARPETA ROAD, DISTRICT - BARPETA (ASSAM) PIN-781313 VERSUS THE STATE OF
GAHC010217112025
2026:GAU-AS:7162
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5760/2025
SRI GOPI DAS
SON OF LATE JITENDRA DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAT BOINIR TUP P.O.
BARPETA ROAD, DISTRICT - BARPETA (ASSAM) PIN-781313
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT AND
FORESTS DEPARTMENT, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006
2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HEAD OF
FORESTS FORCE
ASSAM
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI - 781037.
3:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
AIE VALLEY DIVISION
BANGAIGAON
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J SARMAH, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST,
BEORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
22.05.2026 Heard Mr. J. Sarmah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D. Gogoi, leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the Forest Department.
2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the imposition of 10% of the per kist fund, which is to the tune of Rs. 3,44,504/- on account of DMFT fund.
3. The petitioner in the instant proceedings has also challenged the imposition of 10% of the kist money towards the MMDR fund.
4. In the proceeding before this Court on 26.09.2025, the petitioner gave up the claim pertaining to refund of Rs. 3,44,504/-, which was charged by the respondent department on account of the MMDR fund, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Bishnu Pratim Borah Vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in (2024) 1 GLR
216.
5. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was no authority or jurisdiction upon the respondent authorities to charge an additional 10% of the amount, i.e., to the tune of Rs. 3,44,504/- towards the DMFT fund and as such, the petitioner was entitled to the refund thereof.
6. Taking into account the above, this Court vide the order dated 26.09.2025, directed the respondents to bring on record their stand as regards the imposition of the additional amount of 10%, to the tune of Rs. 3,45,504/- on account of the DMFT fund.
7. In pursuance thereto, an affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 3, wherein, it was mentioned that the Union of India by Gazette Notification dated 17.09.2015 prescribed a contribution of 10% in addition to the royalty towards a District Mineral Foundation Trust.
8. The State of Assam had also constituted the District Mineral Foundation Trust on 26.08.2016 and further, by a Gazette Notification dated 03.01.2018 adopted the same rate of 10% towards minor mineral under its purview.
9. This Court has also taken note of the notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Mines dated 17.09.2015; the constitution of the District Mineral Foundation Trust by the Government of Assam vide notification dated 26.08.2016 as well as the notification dated 05.12.2017, whereby, the Government of Assam was pleased to prescribe the same rate of contribution to the DMFT by the holder of concessions related to minor minerals, as applicable in major minerals.
10. Taking into account the above, it is therefore clear that the imposition upon the petitioner on account of MMDR fund as well as for DMFT fund have been done so, as per authority prescribed under the law.
11. Considering the above, the question, therefore, does not arise for refunding of the said amount which was charged and collected by the respondent department.
12. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition, for which, the writ petition stands dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant