M/S Trishul Traders and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

M/S Trishul Traders and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, whose mineral contract settlement was granted w.e.f. 22.07.2011 to 21.07.2016 (i.e., before the Assam Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2013 came into force), can be made liable to pay the MMDRR Fund in terms with Rule 59 of the Rules of 2013.

Court's answer

The petitioners' submission that they cannot be made liable to pay the MMDRR Fund under Rule 59 of the Rules of 2013 because the Rule came into force after their settlement is misconceived: the proviso to Rule 79(2) of the Rules of 2013 provides that wherever the terms and conditions of any mineral concession granted before the Rules of 2013 are inconsistent with or repugnant to the Rules of 2013, the same shall be deemed to have been modified in accordance with the Rules of 2013 from the date of notification thereof.

Ratio / Principle

The non-mentioning of the requirement for payment towards the MMDRR Fund in the settlement made in favour of the petitioners stands modified by virtue of the proviso to Rule 79(2) of the Rules of 2013, thereby including the requirement in terms with Rule 59 of the Rules of 2013.

Key takeaways

This Court finds no good ground for interfering with the impugned communication dated 20.08.2018 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhubri Division.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WP(C)/539/2022) filed by M/s Trishul Traders and its partner Mal Chand Lalani challenging the communication dated 20.08.2018 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhubri Division, demanding payment of Rs. 6,05,502/- towards the Mines & Minerals Development, Restoration and Rehabilitation (MMDRR) Fund in terms with Rule 59 of the Assam Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2013, DISMISSED by the Gauhati High Court (Devashis Baruah, J.) on 14.05.2026. Held: although the petitioners' contract settlement ran for five years from 22.07.2011 to 21.07.2016, i.e., before the Rules of 2013 came into force, the proviso to Rule 79(2) of the Rules of 2013 deems the terms and conditions of any mineral concession granted before the Rules of 2013, where inconsistent with or repugnant to the Rules of 2013, to have been modified in accordance with the Rules of 2013 from the date of notification thereof; consequently, the settlement's silence on the MMDRR Fund requirement stood modified so as to include the liability under Rule 59. The interim order passed earlier was vacated.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010013042022

2026:GAU-AS:6767

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/539/2022

M/S TRISHUL TRADERS AND ANR

A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT WARD NO. 5, P.O. AND P.S. BILASIPARA, DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783348.

2: MAL CHAND LALANI S/O- LATE BAKSHIRAM LALANI R/O- WARD NO. 8 BILASIPARA P.S. BILASIPARA DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783348. (PARTNER OF M/S TRISHUL TRADERS)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE ASSAM PANJABARI GUWAHATI-37.

3:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER DHUBRI DIVISION DHUBRI.

4:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL) BILASIPARA SUB-DIVISION (BAKIJAI BRANCH) BILASIPARA

Page No.# 2/4

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. Sarmah, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Gogoi, Standing Counsel

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

ORDER

Date : 14.05.2026

Heard Mr. J. Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. R.R. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Forest Department of the Government of Assam.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the communication dated 20.08.2018 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhubri Division, whereby the petitioners were requested to make payment of the outstanding amount of Rs. 6,05,502/- on or before 15.10.2018.

It is the specific case of the petitioners that the petitioners were granted the contract settlement for a period of 5 (five) years w.e.f. 22.07.2011 to 21.07.2016. Under such circumstances, the petitioners cannot be made liable to pay the Mines & Minerals Development, Restoration and Rehabilitation

Page No.# 3/4

Fund (for short, “MMDRR Fund”) in terms with Rule 59 of the Assam Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2013 (for short, “the Rules of 2013”), inasmuch as the said Rule came into force subsequent to the grant of the settlement in favour of the petitioners.

In the opinion of this Court, the said submission appears to be misconceived, taking into account Rule 79 of the Rules of 2013 which specifically provides in the proviso to Rule 79(2) that wherever the terms and conditions of any mineral concession granted before the Rules of 2013 are inconsistent with or repugnant to the Rules of 2013, the same shall be deemed to have been modified in accordance with the Rules of 2013 from the date of notification thereof.

Taking into account the above, the non-mentioning of the requirement for payment towards the MMDRR Fund in the settlement made in favour of the petitioners would stand modified by virtue of the proviso to Rule 79(2) of the Rules of 2013, thereby including the requirement in terms with Rule 59 of the Rules of 2013.

In view of the above, this Court does not find any good ground for interfering with the impugned communication dated 20.08.2018. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

Page No.# 4/4

The interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant