M/S ARFAT TANNERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                            WRIT - C No. - 740 of 2019

M/S Arfat Tanners
                                                                     .....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                                  .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)           : Bed Kant Mishra, Devendra Kumar
                                      Tiwari, Shivam Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)           : Adarsh Bhushan, Ashish Mishra,
                                      C.S.C., Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Court No. - 5
                      HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
                      HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.

1. The matter is directed to be listed peremptorily today vide order dated
03.09.2026. The case is also listed peremptorily and there as as many as
three counsel name are showing in the daily cause list out of which one
counsel is filed his illness slip. though Sri Satvik Choudhary, learned
counsel holding brief of Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.2 & 3 is present.


2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the following
prayers:-

     "I- Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing
     the impugned recovery citation dated 28.09.2018 (Annexure No. 13 to the
     writ petition) issued against the Petitioner demanding market fee on
     turnover of finished leather, shoe upper and leather footwear..

     II- Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing
     and commanding the Respondent no.3, 4 and 5 not to demand or recover
     from the Petitioner any amount towards market fee on Hides and Skins
     under the notifications for the period 25.11.2004 to 31.03.2006 or any
     other period."


3. It is argued by learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 that the
controversy involved in the present petition has already been dealt with
and decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgement and order
dated 17.04.2026 passed in Writ C No.2923 of 2019 (M/S Samsons
                                                                  WRIC No. 740 of 2019
                                    2


Exports Vs. State of U.P. and others) (Neutral Citation No. -
2026:AHC:84994-DB).


4. It is stated in the writ petition that the hides and skins and preparation
of upper part of slippers and sandles would not amount to agriculture
produce.


5. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the Mandi Parishad has placed
a Division Bench judgment of Supreme Court in Park Leather Industry
(P) Ltd. & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors, (2001) 3 SCC 135 in which vide
paras 21, 22 & 23 it has been held thus:

     "21. We see no reason to go into the difference between 'manufacturing'
     and 'processing'. In the strict sense of the terms there may be a difference.
     However, we are not required to go into these differences as, in our view,
     it is very clear, from what has been set out by the Appellants themselves
     in their affidavit that for hide and skin to be converted into leather or
     tanned leather all that is required is a process. It is a process of cleaning,
     curing and adding preservatives. That it is a process has been held by this
     Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Mahi Traders and Others,
     etc. (Supra). We are also of the view that the finished product i.e. 'tanned
     leather' even though it may have changed in physical appearance or
     chemical combination and even though it may commercially be a different
     item still remains a 'hide' or a 'skin'.

     22. For this reason we are of the opinion that there is no illegality or
     infirmity in the judgment of the High Court.

     23. Even otherwise our above view is supported by the Hindi version of
     the definition. As has been set out in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi
     Samiti (Supra), it is well known in U.P. all legislations are in Hindi. Of
     course an English version simultaneously published. Undoubtedly if there
     is conflict between the two than the English version would prevail.
     However, if there is no conflict then one can always have assistance of
     the Hindi version in order to find out whether the word used in English
     includes a particular item or not. In the Hindi version the word used is
     'Chamra'. There can be no dispute that the term 'Chamra' would include
     'leather' in all its forms."


6. Thus, according to learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3, the
controversy sought to be raised is no more res integra.


7. Considering to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.2 & 3, however, he should be given some respite in terms
                                                                                           WRIC No. 740 of 2019
                                                                 3


                                  of time to pay back the dues sought to be recovered by means of recovery
                                  citation.


                                  8. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the
                                  petitioner to deposit Rupees One Lac in 15 days from today and in any
                                  case by 26.09.2026 and remaining amount in three bimonthly installments
                                  beginning from 01.11.2026. It is made clear that any default in payment
                                  of dues, as directed herein above, will cease the protection granted by this
                                  Court and the Mandi Parishad shall be at liberty to recover the amount in
                                  accordance with law.


                                  9. It is further provided that in the event petitioner deposited the amount
                                  as directed herein above, no coercive measure shall be taken against the
                                  petitioner.


                                  10. We make it clear that no time extension application, nor any second
                                  writ petition would be entertained in any circumstances, nor any
                                  modification application for modification of this order shall be
                                  entertained.


                                  11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands
                                  disposed of.



                                                                       (Vivek Saran,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.)
                                  September 11, 2026
                                  saqlain




Digitally signed by :-
SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad