CartoonLifestyle
Northeast | ArunachalAssamTripuraManipurMeghalayaMizoramNagalandSikkim
National
Neighbour | BhutanChinaMyanmarNepalBangladesh
WorldBusinessEntertainmentSportsEnvironmentOpinionAssam Career

Assam govt violates mining law, siphons Rs 6.12 cr from MMDRR fund for eviction drives

03:13 PM Oct 26, 2025 IST | Mahesh Deka
Updated At : 03:47 PM Oct 26, 2025 IST
A massive fiscal irregularity has taken place, leading to over Rs 6.12 crore—money legally earmarked for the environmental restoration of mining sites—getting siphoned from the MMDRR Fund to bankroll eviction drives in Assam.
Advertisement

Guwahati: A senior official of the Assam government has been accused of illegally diverting huge amount of fund from the Mines and Mineral Development, Restoration and Rehabilitation Fund (MMDRR Fund), a move that officials say is totally unwarranted and in violation of the mining laws.

Sources said a massive fiscal irregularity has taken place, leading to over Rs 6.12 crore—money legally earmarked for the environmental restoration of mining sites—getting unilaterally siphoned from the MMDRR Fund to bankroll eviction drives in Assam.

The move, ordered by a top-ranking official, has cause intense departmental debate over the blatant flouting of mandatory mining regulations and financial prudence.

The legal framework for MMDRR funds, the central legislation governing the mining sector in India, is The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act of 1957 (MMDR Act). Section 15(1)(i) of the Act mandates that state governments create rules for the rehabilitation of flora and other vegetation destroyed by mining.

In compliance, the Government of Assam established the Mines and Mineral Development, Restoration and Rehabilitation Fund under the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013. This fund is specific, requiring 10 percent of the dead rent or royalty from mineral concession holders to be credited for dedicated objectives.

These objectives, clearly defined in Rule 58, focus on: funding of restoration or reclamation or rehabilitation works in mining-affected sites; provision of common facilities; development of infrastructure; and education and training in the mining sector.

Rule 61 is unambiguous: “The expenditure on restoration and rehabilitation of the mining sites shall remain the first charge on the fund.” 

Observers affirm that there is no provision under either the MMDR Act, 1957, or the state rules to utilise the MMDRR Funds for any purpose outside those mandated by Rule 58.

The Unauthorized Diversion

According to the minutes of the meeting, a copy of which is available with Northeast Now, the diversion was decided at a meeting on August 22, 2023, where M.K. Yadava, Special Chief Secretary, Assam Environment, Forest & Climate Change Department, authorized the withdrawal of Rs 6.12 Crores for eviction operations in Golaghat and Goalpara Territorial Forest Divisions.

MK Yadvava has been accused of illegally diverting huge amount of fund from the MMDRR Fund.

Sources said the funds were specifically withdrawn: Rs 5 Crores for Golaghat’s eviction was sourced from the MMDRR Fund of the Cachar Forest Division, and Rs 1.12 Crores for the Goalpara eviction was drawn from its own Divisional MMDRR Fund.

The DFOs of the respective Forest Divisions are the notified custodians of these accounts. Several Departmental officers have expressed deep concern, stating that this breach of fiduciary discipline may only be “the tip of the iceberg.”

Minutes of the meetingDownload

They also pointed out that withdrawing funds from a Public Account of the State Government typically requires State Assembly approval.

MK Yadava’s Troubled History

The official at the centre of the controversy, M.K. Yadava, has a documented history of alleged financial impropriety. He was previously removed from his post for diverting funds of the Kaziranga Tiger Conservation Foundation (KTCF) for a Presidential visit.

Furthermore, he has been linked to allegations of fudging rhino population figures in Kaziranga in 2022.

He has also allegedly diverted forest land under multiple Reserve Forests, violating the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Supreme Court orders, which prompted the Central Government to seek action against him.

Most recently, he issued denotification orders for three Proposed Reserve Forests (PRFs) in direct contravention of Supreme Court mandates.

Advertisement