JUDGMENT The learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to amend the writ petition in the court itself. 2. Notices on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 have been accepted by Mr.N.C.Mehrotra, learned Advocate and for the opposite parties 3 and 4 notices have been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel. 3. The petitioner has assailed the order of seizure of Truck No.UP 31 T 1855, which was loaded with goods veneer. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the veneer is not in the form of wood, therefore, it cannot be said to be an agricultural produce. 4. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that this controversy has already been set at rest by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Allahabad in the case of Shakil Ahmad and another versus State of U.P. through the Special Secretary Ministry of Agriculture, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and others Writ-C No.7614 of 2012. In this case the Coordinate Bench has held that: - "Even if veneer is a "process" in manufacturing of ply wood, it would be included in the definition of "agriculture produce" so amended. Ply wood is a marketable product having all the physicals and chemical qualities of wood. Ply wood is pasting of peeled wood in its processed form having all chemical qualities of wood, is marketable as "ply wood" or "veneer ply wood" or ply wood etc. but market fee is also payable" In view of the aforesaid findings of the Court the petitioner has expressed his willingness to deposit the fee. Therefore, we hereby give him liberty to deposit the fee as has been assessed. As soon as he deposits his Truck No.UP 31 T 1855 shall be released forthwith. His offer of deposit shall not be denied only because of being beyond time. The writ petition is disposed of finally.