78. The above analysis indicates an additional reason why there is a repugnancy between WB-HIRA and RERA- the above provisions of the State enactment are directly in conflict with the Central enactment. Undoubtedly, as Article 254(1) postulates, the legislation enacted by the State legislature is void “to the extent of the repugnancy”. But the above analysis clearly demonstrates that in material respects, WB-HIRA has failed to incorporate valuable institutional safeguards and provisions intended to protect the interest of home-buyers. The silence of the State legislature in critical areas, as noted above, indicates that important safeguards which have been enacted by Parliament in the public interest have been omitted in the State enactment. There is, in other words, not only a direct conflict of certain provisions between the RERA and WB-HIRA but there is also a failure of the State legislature to incorporate statutory safeguards in WB-HIRA, which have been introduced in the RERA for protecting the interest of the purchasers of real estate. In failing to do so, the State legislature has transgressed the limitations on its power and has enacted a law which is repugnant to Parliamentary legislation on the same subject matter.

80. Since we have already answered with the first requirement, the second remains. However, the State of West Bengal initially argued that WB-HIRA did not require presidential since it had been enacted under List II, but that argument has now been given up before this Court, as already noted above, and it is admitted that it comes under List III (the same as RERA). Further, it has also been clarified by us, rejecting their argument, that Sections 88 and 89 of the RERA did not implicitly permit the States to create their own legislation creating a parallel regime alongside the RERA which would have not required presidential assent. Hence, it is clear that WB-HIRA did not have presidential assent and was repugnant to RERA under Article 254.

82. ………The above provisions are repugnant to the corresponding provisions which are contained in the RERA. These provisions of the WB 1993 Act impliedly stand repealed upon the enactment of the RERA in 2016, in accordance with Sections 88 and 89 read with Article 254(1) of the Constitution. Hence, we clarify with abundant caution that our striking down of the provisions of WB-HIRA in the present judgment will not, in any manner, revive the WB 1993 Act, which was repealed upon the enactment of WB-HIRA since the WB 1993 Act is itself repugnant to the RERA, and would stand impliedly repealed.

83. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that WB-HIRA is repugnant to the RERA, and is hence unconstitutional. We also hold and declare that as a consequence of the declaration by this Court of the invalidity of the provisions of WB-HIRA, there shall be no revival of the provisions of the WB 1993 Act, since it would stand impliedly repealed upon the enactment of the RERA.

84. Since its enforcement in the State of West Bengal, the WB-HIRA would have been applied to building projects and implemented by the authorities constituted under the law in the state. In order to avoid uncertainty and disruption in respect of actions taken in the past, recourse to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 is necessary. Hence, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142, we direct that the striking down of WB-HIRA will not affect the registrations, sanctions and permissions previously granted under the legislation prior to the date of this judgment

85. The writ petition is accordingly stand allowed in the above terms.