JUDGMENT 1. - In both these writ petitions identical question of fact and law are involved, therefore, they are disposed of by this single judgment. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the validity of the Notification dated 25th April, 1985 whereby the moth has been included in the schedule and the export of the same has been prohibited. 2. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm and doing its business at Bikaner. The State of Rajasthan imposed restrictions on the export of the Cattle Fodder from the year 1968 and onwards periodically. In the year 1968 an order was promulgated which was operated in Bikaner district only and thereafter the order issued from time to time for whole of the Rajasthan. The schedule of Cattle Fodder given in the Rajasthan Cattle Fodder (Sale and Stocks and Prohibition of Export) Order, 1984 whereby 'moth and moth Chara' etc. was included, however on representation being made by the traders the State of Rajasthan deleted the item 'moth' from the Schedule vide Notification dated 26th July, 1983 published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra, dated 27th July, 1983. However again another order has been issued on 25th April, 1985 and 'moth' has been included in the schedule. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that moth is not used as cattle fodder and if used it will prove dangerous to the health of cattle. Secondly there is no formation of opinion as required under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. That there is a discrimination, no restriction on the export of Jawar, Bajra and wheat etc. have been imposed whereas prohibition has been made in the case of moth. Lastly, it has been contended that it is a pulse as defined in Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licence and Control) Order, 1980. Mr. Dave has submitted that it is wrong to say that cattle will die, if the moth is served, he further submitted that there is a formation of opinion and on the basis of record which was placed for my perusal. Lastly, he submits that there is no question of discrimination involved in the matter. Lastly he further submits that even if it is included in the pulse that does not prevent the prohibition of the export of the 'moth'. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Government Advocate. Lastly, he submits that there is no question of discrimination involved in the matter. Lastly he further submits that even if it is included in the pulse that does not prevent the prohibition of the export of the 'moth'. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Government Advocate. I am of the view that the Notification does not suffer from any of the infirmities pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. If moth is served to the cattle it will prove injurious to the cattle is not correct. In the case of M/s. Lohia Murlidhar v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 177 of 1980, decided on February 2, 1980 , it has been held as under i "It was not disputed that Gawar and Moth are also used as fodder for feeding animals in India. It is well settled that if a word is not defined in the Act, but is a word of everyday use, it must be construed in its popular sense which people conversant with the subject-matter, with which the statute is dealing, would attribute to it. Gawar, Moth and Moth Churi are popularly used to feed cattle. Moth Churi is derivative of Moth and having regard to the manner in which it is prepared and used, I am of the opinion that Moth Churi is also a cattle fodder. Following M/s. Mehta Motilal and Sumermal and Co's case (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1501/79 decided on 2-2-1980) (supra), 1 hold that the order (Annx. A) is valid in so far as it relates to the inclusion of Gawar, Moth and Moth Churis, the Schedule as cattle fodder. No other point survives for consideration. The writ petition is dismissed summarily." Thus it cannot be said that the moth is not being served to the cattle as cattle feed. So far as the question of formation of the opinion is concerned, I have perused the file placed before me and perusal of the same shows that the matter was examined and it has been approved by the Government therefore there is a valid formation of the opinion. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited before me The Hamdard Dawalchana and Anr. v. The U.O.I. and ors, AIR 1965 SC 1167 . The learned counsel for the petitioner cited before me The Hamdard Dawalchana and Anr. v. The U.O.I. and ors, AIR 1965 SC 1167 . In view of the fact that a perusal of the Secretariat file which was placed before me, I am satisfied that there is a proper formation of the opinion, therefore, I reject this contention of the petitioner. 4. So far as the question of discrimination is concerned it is for the authorities to decide and form an opinion on the basis of material that whether they want to prohibit the particular item from export. It depends upon the stock position of the material and it is not necessary that when export of 'moth' has been prohibited similar prohibition should be imposed on other food grains also. If the authorities after examining the availability of the food grain forms the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case a particular food grain is in short supply and it is in the interest of State then same can be done. In such matter there is no question of violation of Article 14 because each item is class in itself. They can not be said to be similarly placed. There might be stock oi Jawar, Bajra and wheat which do not require to be prohibited from being exported but same may not be true regarding moth. Thus there is no question of discrimination in such item. 5. Lastly the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the products are included in the Rajasthan Trade Articles Orders and the moth is available at the cost of Rs. 4/- per kilo. Be that as it may, simple because item has been included in the definition of pulse does not prevent the State Government from prohibiting the export of same. Likewise cost factor is also irrelevant. When the competent authority looking to the facts and circumstances of the case decide the prohibition of export of particular item in the interest of State such formation of the opinion can not lightly be disturbed on such ground my answer is in negative for reasons mentioned above. 6. In the result, I do not find any force in these writ petitions and the same are dismissed. There is no order as to costs.Petitions dismissed. *******