R.M. DOSHIT, CJ.:–This group of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution have been referred to the Division Bench under order dated 1st April 2013 made by the learned single Judge. 2. The petitioners are the individuals or the association of individuals interested in running Fair Price Shop under the Public Distribution System. The petitioners seek to challenge the Government Notification dated 23rd June 2011 issued to amend the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2007 Order”). The petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the aforesaid Notification dated 23rd June 2011 on the ground that the same is made in contravention of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2001 Order”) issued by the Government of India and of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 3. The challenge mainly is against the exclusion of the individuals for grant of licence for Fair Price Shop under Public Distribution System. Some of the writ petitioners have also challenged the provisions for grant of the licence on compassionate ground to the dependant of a licensee, if the licensee dies before attaining the age of 55 years. Contention is that the said benefit should be extended to all licensees irrespective of their age at the time of their death. In other words, the cut off age of 55 years adopted by the State Government is arbitrary and has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The petitioners have also challenged the requirement of keeping the shop open for all the seven days as arbitrary and contrary to the provisions contained in the Shops and Establishment Act. 4. The writ petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 15157 of 2011 has also challenged the criminal liability laid upon the Licensee of the Fair Price Shop. Learned counsel Mr. N.K.Agrawal has appeared for the said writ petitioner. He has submitted that he does not press the aforesaid challenge. 5. Learned counsels Mr Basant Kumar Choudhary and Mr. N.K.Agrawal and the learned advocates Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha and Mr. Manoj Kumar have appeared for the writ petitioners. Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary has submitted that the 2001 Order has been issued by the Central Government in exercise of power conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. N.K.Agrawal and the learned advocates Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha and Mr. Manoj Kumar have appeared for the writ petitioners. Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary has submitted that the 2001 Order has been issued by the Central Government in exercise of power conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Paragraph 5 of the annexe to the 2001 Order enjoins the State Governments to issue Order to regulate sale and distribution of the essential commodities. It is under the aforesaid mandate of the Government of India, the State of Bihar has issued the above referred 2007 Order. The 2007 Order, therefore, must coincide with the 2001 Order. Any contravention thereof would vitiate such provision. He has relied upon the definition of the words “Fair Price Shop” and the “Fair Price Shop Owner” occurring in paragraph 2(j) and 2(k) of the 2001 Order. He has submitted that the 2001 Order does not exclude individuals from grant of licence. He has further submitted that the exclusion of the individuals for grant of licence under the 2007 Order is arbitrary and discriminatory inasmuch as it has no nexus to the purpose of the Order or has no rationale behind such arbitrary discrimination. In support of his submissions Mr. Choudhary has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Academy of Nutrition Improvement and Others Vs. Union of India, { (2011) 8 SCC 274 } and of Govind A. Mane and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, { (2000) 4 SCC 200 }. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra has appeared for the writ petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 20531 of 2011. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia Vs. Justice S.R.Tendolkar, (A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 538) and of Vithal Dass Vs. Rup Chand and Others, (A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 188). This judgment has no applicability to the matter at issue in the present Petitions. 7. Learned Principal Additional Advocate General Mr. Lalit Kishore has appeared for the State Government. He has contested the writ petitions. He has submitted that the grant of licence under the 2007 Order is confined to certain societies or association of persons with a view to monitor the Public Distribution System closely and more efficiently. 7. Learned Principal Additional Advocate General Mr. Lalit Kishore has appeared for the State Government. He has contested the writ petitions. He has submitted that the grant of licence under the 2007 Order is confined to certain societies or association of persons with a view to monitor the Public Distribution System closely and more efficiently. He has submitted that the impugned modification was required to be made on account of the report of the Central Vigilance Commission submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He has also submitted that the impugned modification is in consonance with the National Food Security Act, 2013. He has submitted that the restrictions imposed under the impugned modification are with a view to making the system more effective and fall within the realm of reasonable restriction. The challenge to the validity of the said modifications is, therefore, not tenable. In support thereof he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sreenivasa General Traders and Others etc. Vs.. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others etc., (A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1246). 8. It appears that in a Writ Petition (Civil) No.196 of 2001 filed in public interest by the Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberties, the Hon’ble Supreme Court is seized of and is monitoring the Public Distribution System. In the said proceeding the Union of India has filed a counter affidavit and has incorporated the recommendations/suggestions made by the Central Vigilance Commission, which read as under:– “(i) Wherever FPS is operated by private individuals, they should be phased out gradually. (ii) FPSs should be run by CSCs. Till the Corporation is established, FPSs may be allocated to cooperatives, women self-help groups, Upbhokta Bhandar, etc. FPSs not to be run by private individuals. (iii) Where no infrastructure exists for operating FPS, the same should be built by State/Corporation on the lines of Mother Dairy outlet or ATM or Post Office. Land can be provided to the Corporation by the State or by the Panchayat.” Mr. Lalit Kishore has heavily relied upon the suggestion, “Wherever FPS (Fair Price Shop) is operated by the private individuals, they should be phased out gradually.”. 9. Mr. Lalit Kishore has submitted that the impugned modification was necessitated on account of the aforesaid suggestion made by the Central Vigilance Commission. 10. Lalit Kishore has heavily relied upon the suggestion, “Wherever FPS (Fair Price Shop) is operated by the private individuals, they should be phased out gradually.”. 9. Mr. Lalit Kishore has submitted that the impugned modification was necessitated on account of the aforesaid suggestion made by the Central Vigilance Commission. 10. We may note that the endeavour to justify the impugned amendment on the touchstone of the 2013 Act cannot be countenanced. The Constitutional validity of a legal provision cannot be examined in the light of the subsequent enactment. 11. Before we consider the challenge to the impugned modifications, we may note the rationale behind such modifications indicated by the State Government. The State Government has filed a counter affidavit to contest the writ petitions. The only reason recorded in the counter affidavit is that the individual licensees are more susceptible to black-marketing. Therefore, in larger interest of public welfare the individuals have been excluded. 12. We are not aware on what basis or for what reason the Central Vigilance Commission has made the above referred suggestions and what should be the justification for such suggestions. But to us, it appears that the impugned modification amounts to blacklisting the individuals on the allegation that the individuals are dishonest. Such omnibus allegation is not warranted. 13. In our opinion, the very reason for which the individuals are excluded from grant of licence under the 2007 Order is untenable. The assertion that the individual licensees are more susceptible to black-marketing is not supported by any evidence. It is not the case of the State Government that the State Government had carried out a survey in respect of the functioning of the Fair Price Shops. We find the statement irresponsible and highly objectionable. True, all is not well in respect of the Fair Price Shops. Licensees do indulge into black-marketing. But that is true for all the licensees, be them individuals, association of individuals or Co-operative Societies. 14. We see no rationale or any justiciable reason in excluding the individuals from grant of licence. 15. We do not see any merit in challenge to the other provisions referred to hereinabove. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, we partially allow these writ petitions. Paragraph 3 of the impugned Notification dated 23rd June 2011 is quashed and set aside as being arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 15. We do not see any merit in challenge to the other provisions referred to hereinabove. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, we partially allow these writ petitions. Paragraph 3 of the impugned Notification dated 23rd June 2011 is quashed and set aside as being arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.:–I agree.