HEINZ INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 3 S.C.R. 898 · Decided: 23-03-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 898 
HEINZ INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal NO. 1476 of 2006) 
MARCH 23, 2012 
[T.S. THAKUR AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
The Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 
1964: 
ss. 2(h), 32 and 33 of the Act read with r.133-A of the 
Rules framed under the Act - Market fee - Levy of -
Assessment and adjudicatory machinery - Held: Dealers 
aggrieved of an order of assessment or an order declining 
0 
refund of the fee paid by them are entitled to question the 
correctness of any such demand in terms of s.32 which is in 
the nature of a revisional power vested in the Board - The 
power vested in the Board including that u/s 32 of the Act 
could be exercised by the Director as a delegate of the Board 
E keeping in view the provisions of s. 33 of the Act which permits 
such delegation - Rule 133-A of the Rules regulates the filing 
and disposal of the revision petitions uls 32 and is, therefore, 
a step in the direction of providing a machinery under the Act 
for adjudication of disputes that may arise between dealers 
on the one hand and the market committee on the other -
F That being so, the Act is not completely bereft of a machinery 
nor can it be said that the observations made in Ram Chandra 
Kai/ash Kumar's case have gone unheeded - However, in 
order to make the Board's revisional power more effective and 
its exercise more transparent and credible, the Board would 
G do well to delegate the power of hearing and disposal of the 
revision petitions to a senior and experienced officer who is 
well-versed in dealing with legal issues concerning 
assessment and/or determination of the liability under the Act. 
H 
898 
HEINZ !NOIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & 899 
ORS. 
s. 2(h) -
'Director' - Held: It is manifest from a plain A 
reading of s.2(h) that the expression 'Director' wherever used 
in the Act including s. 33 thereof includes an officer authorised 
by the Director to perform all or any of his functions under the 
Act. 
s.17(iii), Explanation - Presumption as regards sale of B 
a product within the market area - Standard of proof to rebut 
the presumption - Held: The presumption is rebuttable in 
nature, for it holds good only till the contrary is not proved by 
the· dealer -
The evidence intended to rebut the statutory 
presumption u/s 17 of the Act ought to be clear and C 
convincing, showing that what is presumed under the 
provision is not the real fact - In the instant case, the Market 
Committee and the Director have recorded concurrent 
findings of fact to the effect that the dealers had failed to 
establish that no sale of the stocks of Ghee had taken place D 
within the Mandi limits - The statutory presumption that any 
transfer of stocks from within the Mandi area was pursuant to 
a sale was, thus, held to have remained unrebutted. 
Judicial Review: 
E 
Mandi Samiti - Market fee - Levy of - Judicial review of 
- Held: The court in exercise of power of judicial review does 
not substitute its judgment for that of the legislature or 
executive or their agents as to matters within the province of 
the either - In the instant case, the Mandi Samiti appreciated 
F 
each piece of evidence and found the same to be insufficient 
to hold that the sale transactions had, in fact, taken place 
outside the Mandi area so that the presumption arising uls 
17(iii) of the Act stood rebutted - The Director exercising 
powers of the Mandi Parishad once again evaluated the 
G 
evidence and concurred with the view taken by the Mandi 
Samiti - It is neither feasible for the Court to embark upon 
. an exercise of re-appreciating the entire material nor to 
substitute its own findings for those recorded by the Mandi 
Samiti and the Director/Mandi Parishad - So long as the 
H 
900 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 
A finding recorded by the Mandi Samiti and the Mandi Parishad 
are not irrational or perverse, and so long as the view taken 
by them is a reasonably possible view, the Court would not 
interfere. 
The predecessor-in-interest of appellant no. 1 in C.A. 
8 No. 1476 of 2006 manufactured certain products 
generically called milkfoods/weaning foods and energy 
beverages. The manufacturing process also produced 
'ghee' as a by-product of the said items. With effect from 
1.10.1994, the unit was taken over by appellant no. 1 and 
C it continued to manufacture the said items including· 
'ghee'. After February 1995, the Mandi Samiti constituted 
under the U

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.