Statutory presumption in market-fee disputes rebuts only by clear and convincing evidence; concurrent findings stay undisturbed absent perversity.

The Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 was treated as containing sufficient machinery for assessment and adjudication of market-fee disputes through revisional powers, delegation provisions and supporting rules, so the challenge for want of procedure failed. The statutory presumption under the Explanation to Section 17(iii) was held rebuttable only by clear and convincing evidence, not by weak material or a mere balance of probabilities, because the nature of the transaction lay within the traders' special knowledge. Concurrent findings rejecting stock transfer and refund claims were left undisturbed, as they disclosed no perversity, legal error or other ground warranting judicial review.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 lacked the machinery provisions necessary for assessment and adjudication of disputes relating to market fee; (ii) what standard of proof is required to rebut the statutory presumption under the Explanation to Section 17(iii) of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964; (iii) whether the concurrent findings rejecting the claim of stock transfer and refund suffered from any legal infirmity warranting judicial interference.

Issue (i): whether the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 lacked the machinery provisions necessary for assessment and adjudication of disputes relating to market fee

Analysis: The statutory scheme conferred revisional power on the Board under Section 32 and permitted delegation to the Director under Section 33. The definition of Director in Section 2(h) included an officer authorised by the Director. Rule 133-A of the Rules also regulated filing and disposal of revision petitions and provided for hearing and time-bound disposal. The earlier decision in Ram Chandra Kailash Kumar was treated as having recognised that the Act was not wholly bereft of machinery, and the later rule-making filled part of the procedural gap.

Conclusion: The Act was held to contain a sufficient machinery for assessment and adjudication, and the challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): what standard of proof is required to rebut the statutory presumption under the Explanation to Section 17(iii) of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964

Analysis: The Explanation raised a rebuttable presumption that specified agricultural produce removed from the market area by a licensed trader had been sold within the area. The Court held that the presumption could not be displaced by weak or nebulous material; the rebuttal had to be clear and convincing, though not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The nature of the transaction was within the special knowledge of the traders, which justified a higher evidentiary standard than mere preponderance of probability.

Conclusion: The rebuttal evidence had to be clear and convincing, and the statutory presumption was not displaced by a mere balance of probabilities.

Issue (iii): whether the concurrent findings rejecting the claim of stock transfer and refund suffered from any legal infirmity warranting judicial interference

Analysis: The Mandi Samiti and the revisional authority had recorded concurrent findings that the material produced did not establish stock transfer or rebut the presumption of sale. The Court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review, confined to illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, perversity, or findings wholly unsupported by evidence. It declined to reappreciate evidence, refused remand or production of fresh material at that stage, and held that the findings were reasonably possible and not perverse.

Conclusion: No legal infirmity was found in the concurrent findings, and interference was declined.

Final Conclusion: The statutory levy was sustained, the refund claim failed, and the Court left undisturbed the concurrent administrative and writ findings against the dealers.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory presumption under a fiscal levy may be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence, and concurrent findings based on a reasonably possible appreciation of evidence will not be disturbed in judicial review absent perversity or legal error.

---