M/S. HEINZ INDIA PVT. LTD. vs STATE OF U.P. .

The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of writ petitions challenging the order of the Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad under Section 32 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964. The Court reiterated that the sale of specified agricultural produce within Mandi limits attracts Mandi Fee, and the presumption against dealers under Section 17(iii) allows the Mandi Samiti to demand fees unless a valid rebuttal is provided. The Court ruled that the companies' claims of stock transfer were insufficient to exempt them from the fee, affirming the lower court's decision.