D. M. CHANDRASHEKHAR, C.J. (for himself, R.B. Misra and M.P. Mehrotra, JJ.) : - These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been referred to this Full Bench of five Judges as the constitutionality of an Act of the Uttar Pradesh Legislature and of an Order issued thereunder have been challenged in them (the petitions).

2. The petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ No. 1447 of 1977 had filed a Special Leave petition before the Supreme Court against the order of this Court declining to stay the operation of the impugned Order. The Supreme Court, while dismissing the Special Leave petition, directed this Court to take up Civil Misc. Writ No. 1447 of 1977 for final disposal on 4-7-1977, so that this Court may decide whether or not the Order impugned in the writ petition is a valid one and if that Order is held to be invalid for any reason, the benefit of the decision may be available to the petitioner at least for a short period and in any event for the coming years.

3. The aforesaid order of the Supreme Court dated 10-6-1977, was received by this Court on 11-7-1977. On the afternoon of 5-7-1977, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ No. 1447 of 1977 produced before the Chief Justice of this Court a certified copy of the order of the Supreme Court. Thereafter this Full Bench was constituted and these writ petitions came up for hearing before this Bench on 11-7-1977. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1447 of 1977 concluded his arguments only on 14-7-1977. As the erstwhile Acting Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh resigned from his office and none had been appointed in his place, the learned Standing Counsel for the State Government moved on 14-7-1977 for adjournment of these petitions to 18-7-1977.

4. The impugned order expired on 15-7-1977 and no new Order under the Act has been issued by the Government in its place. Yet, in view of the direction of the Supreme Court we proceeded to hear these petitions and we are now pronouncing our common order in them.

5. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1447 of 1977 purchases and collects milk from cow-herds and after chilling it sends it to various towns in Himachal Pradesh. He had made an application for grant of a permit under the impugned Order to export chilled milk from Saharanpur to towns in Himachal Pradesh. But the Milk Commissioner in U. P. did not grant him such permit.

6. The rest of the petitioners are engaged in purchasing milk, extracting cream from it, making butter and ghee from such cream and selling skimmed milk, butter and ghee.

7. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1447 of 1977 felt aggrieved by the restriction placed by the impugned Order on his exporting chilled milk to Himachal Pradesh. The rest of the petitioners felt aggrieved by the restriction placed by the impugned Order on preparing butter and ghee from cream extracted from milk.

8. Before dealing with the several contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, it is useful to set out the provisions of the U. P. Milk Act. 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the provisions of the U. P. Milk and Milk Products Control Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred as to the Control Order).

9. The Act received the assent of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh on 16-4-1976.

10. Clause © of S. 2 of the Act which defines dairy, reads :

"© dairy means any premises where machinery is used for cooling, heating or any other treatment of milk or for converting milk into milk products or packaging of milk or milk products."

11. Section 3 of the Act provides for the constitution of the Milk Board as a corporate body.

12. Sub-section (1) of S. 6 of the Act provides that the function of the Board shall generally be to plan, control, develop and regulate milk production and dairy industry in the State. Clause (e) of sub-s. (2) of that section provides that the Board may take steps to regulate the price of milk and milk products.

13. Section 11 of the Act Provides for licens