JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, C.J. - Sec. 12 of the U. P. Milk Act (U. P. Act No. 7 of 1976) authorises the Milk Board to declare by a notification an area to be 'reserved area to ensure the availability of sufficient milk at fair prices. Acting under this provision, the Milk Board on Jan. 4, 1977 issued a notification declaring certain areas as reserved areas in the district of Moradabad, Aligarh, Mathura, Meerut etc. On April 24, 1978 the State Government issued a notification under Section 15 of the U. P. Milk Act, called the Uttar Pradesh Milk and Milk Products Control Order, 1978. This notification applied to four regions mentioned in it. The notification was to remain in force till July 15, 1978. By a subsequent notification its operation was extended till July 30, 1978. Clause (2) of this Control Order imposed restrictions upon the use of the milk for manufacture of any milk product and also on export of milk to places outside the mentioned regions. The proviso makes certain exemptions. 2. The petitioners in this group of writ petitions are producers of milk as also those who run dairies to collect and sell milk and manufacture and sell milk products. They having felt aggrieved at those notifications have approached the Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution with a prayer that the aforesaid notifications be quashed principally on the ground that they violate Art. 14 of the Constitution. 3. The notification under Section 12 of the Act has been challenged on the ground that it creates an invidious discrimination between certain manufacturers and the dairies specifically 'mentioned in it on the one side, and others in the matter of requirement of a valid permit before the latter class can transport milk or milk products outside the reserved area. This notification creates reserved areas and fixes price payable to the producers of the milk in the reserved areas. Clause (2) provides that no person other than those mentioned in it shall collect, carry or transport milk or milk products from any place within a reserved area to any place outside such area without obtaining a valid permit from the Licensing Authority under the U. P. Milk Act, 1976. 4. Clause (2) provides that no person other than those mentioned in it shall collect, carry or transport milk or milk products from any place within a reserved area to any place outside such area without obtaining a valid permit from the Licensing Authority under the U. P. Milk Act, 1976. 4. This clause is nothing but a reiteration of Section 13 of the U. P. Milk Act under which no person other than an authorised person or agency shall collect or transport milk or milk products from any place within a reserved area to any place outside such area without obtaining a licence. The second clause being reiteration of Section 13 was within the purview of the Milk Board. The notification dated Jan. 4, 1977 purported to have been issued under Section 12 as well as Section 13 of the Act. Clause 2 hence cannot be said to be either beyond the power of the Milk Board or invalid on any other ground. 5. The challenge to the notification, issued by the State Government under Section 15 of the Act has been confined to provisos (ii), (iii) and (iv) of Cl. 2 of the Notification. By Cl. (1) of the Control' Order the State Government created four regions. Provisos (ii), (iii) and (iv) of Cl. 2 provide exemption, (ii) to the use of milk for the manufacture of and to the sale, service, supply or export of the infant milk food or any product like cream (including the-derivatives such as butter or ghee, made in the process of manufacture of such infant milk food, or (iii) to the use of milk for the manufacture of and to the sale, service, supply or export of cream, butter or ghee by dairies engaged in pasteurisation or sterilisation of liquid milk for public distribution. (iv) to export of liquid milk to the Union Territory of Delhi for and use in Delhi. 6. The proviso grants exemption to certain categories from the operation of Cl. (2). Under the second proviso exemption is in favour of manufacturers of and to the sale, service, supply or export of infant milk food or any of its byproduct. In the present writ petitions; there is no averment to sustain the allegation that this clause makes any invidious discrimination in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution. (2). Under the second proviso exemption is in favour of manufacturers of and to the sale, service, supply or export of infant milk food or any of its byproduct. In the present writ petitions; there is no averment to sustain the allegation that this clause makes any invidious discrimination in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Ex facie infant milk food which is exempt is a; category by itself and any provision to safeguard its supply cannot be said to be discriminatory. 7. The Third Proviso grants exemption in respect of manufacture, sale, supply etc. of cream, butter or ghee by dairies engaged in pasteurisation or sterilisation of liquid milk for public distribution. In this respect also there is no specific allegation in the writ petitions bringing out how this clause discriminates against the petitioners. The petitioners are free to establish pasteurisation or sterilisation plant and they will also be entitled to exemption under this proviso. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to an observation made in Suresh Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( AIR 1977 All 515 ) (FB). In that case a notification issued in the year 1977 under Sec. 15 of the U. P. Milk Act was challenged. Third proviso of that notification exempted dairies run by central society registered under the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 or a Government Dairy or a Dairy run by a Corporation owned or controlled by Government and established under an Act of the Central or the State Government. Dealing with this proviso, a Full Bench of this Court held; "'The object of the Control Order is maintaining and increasing supplies of fluid milk and securing equitable distribution and availability thereof at fair prices in the State of U. P. ........................... The mere fact that the former category of dairies pasteurise milk and supply it in a hygienic condition to hospitals and to the public cannot be a ground for exempting such dairies from the prohibition to export fluid milk from any region to another region of this State or to any other State or from the prohibition to extract cream from milk and to make butter. If such dairies export milk to other States or use milk for extracting cream and making butter therefrom, such export or manufacture would diminish the quantity of fluid milk available to the consumers in this State in the same manner as export of fluid milk and extracting of cream and making of butter by other dairies or other persons." 8. The Bench held that the aforesaid classification was irrational. It had no nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Control Order. Hence it contravened Art. 14 of the Constitution. 9. It will be seen that unlike the third proviso of the 1977 Control Order, the present third proviso does not grant exemption for export of milk. It only exempts the use of milk for manufacture of and to the sale, service, supply or export of cream, butter or ghee by a specified category of dairies. We have to emphasise that no factual averment has been made by the petitioners to sustain the allegation that these dairies do not form a class by themselves. It has, however, been stated on behalf of the respondents that cream, butter or ghee is a by-product of dairies engaged in pasteurisation or sterilisation of liquid milk. The exemption is in favour of dairies engaged in pasteurisation and sterilisation of milk for public use and this exemption has been given to the necessary by-products in dairies engaged in distribution of milk for public. The emphasis and the exemption in the provisos in the two Control Orders is entirely different. Unlike the previous one the present does not exempt export of milk. We see no vice of discrimination in this clause. 10. The fourth proviso which permits export of milk to the Union Territory of Delhi was also challenged as violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. None of the petitioners has alleged that he exports milk to any territory outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. Some of the petitioners have stated that they manufacture and export cream to Himachal Pradesh, They are not hurt by the exemption granted by the fourth proviso in favour of the exporters of milk. Since none of the petitioners is exporting milk outside the State, they cannot have grievance about the exemption to the export of milk to the Union Territory of Delhi. The point hence does not arise. 11. Since none of the petitioners is exporting milk outside the State, they cannot have grievance about the exemption to the export of milk to the Union Territory of Delhi. The point hence does not arise. 11. Learned counsel for some of the petitioners urged that they produce or collect milk in areas outside the reserved areas and they transport it for sale to other areas which are also outside the reserved areas but for transporting it from one place to another they have to pass through the reserved areas. The respondents have placed a restriction on movement of such milk through reserved areas. The respondents have no power to impose such a restriction. Learned Standing Counsel stated before us that the respondents are not placing any restriction on movement of such milk or milk products. They interfere only when they are satisfied that the petitioners pick up or collect milk or milk products from within the reserved areas for transporting the same outside the reserved areas. From the provisions of the milk Act and its rules it is clear that movement of milk or milk products from within the reserved areas to places outside the reserved areas is not permissible without a licence. In view of this clarification made by the Standing Counsel, no relief is required to be granted to the petitioners on this .ground. 12. No other point was pressed. The various points raised having failed, the writ petitions fail and are dismissed with cost.