LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

FORUM FOR PEOPLE’S COLLECTIVE EFFORTS (FPCE) & ANR. versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 5 S.C.R. 613 · Decided: 04-05-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 16 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
613
[2021] 5 S.C.R. 613
613
FORUM FOR PEOPLE’S COLLECTIVE EFFORTS (FPCE) &
ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
(Writ Petition (C) No. 116 of 2019)
MAY 04, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M R SHAH, JJ.]
West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017
(WB-HIRA):
Constitutional validity of – Challenged to, on the ground of
inconsistencies and overlapping with central law-Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) – Held: WB-HIRA
is repugnant to RERA and thus, held to be unconstitutional – WB-
HIRA purports to occupy the same subject as that which has been
provided in the Parliamentary legislation-RERA – State law fits,
virtually on all fours, with the footprints of the law enacted by
Parliament, which is constitutionally impermissible – Overlap
between the provisions of WB-HIRA and the RERA is so significant
–Provisions of the RERA have been lifted bodily, word for word
and enacted into the State enactment – WB-HIRA does not
complement the RERA by enacting provisions or fortifying the rights,
obligations and remedies created by the RERA – Subject of the
provisions of the State enactment is identical, the content is identical
– In essence and substance, WB-HIRA enacted a parallel mechanism
and parallel regime as that which has been entailed under the RERA
– Not only is the subject matter identical but the statutory provisions
of WB-HIRA are on a majority of counts identical to those of the
RERA – Both sets of statutes are referable to the same entries in the
Concurrent List-Entries 6 and 7 of List III – Thus, the test of
repugnancy based on an identity of subject matter is clearly
established – Also WB-HIRA did not have presidential assent and
was repugnant to RERA u/Art. 254 – Furthermore, as a result thereof,
no revival of the provisions of the WB Act, 1993, since it would
stand impliedly repealed upon the enactment of the RERA – Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 – West Bengal
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
614
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 5 S.C.R.
(Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by
Promoters) Act, 1993.
Plea that WB-HIRA intended to cover the field of ‘housing
industry’ under Entry 24 of List II – Held: WB-HIRA did not fall
under the ambit of the term industry within the meaning of Entry 24
of the State List.
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016:
ss. 88 and 89 – Interpretation and interplay of – Held: s.88
stipulates that the application of other laws is not barred, the
provisions of the legislation “shall be in addition to, and not in
derogation of, the provisions of any other law for the time being in
force” – s. 89 provides for overriding effect to the provisions of the
RERA when it stipulates that it “shall have effect, notwithstanding
anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the
time being in force” – s. 88 is an indicator of the fact that Parliament
has not intended to occupy the whole field so as to preclude
altogether the exercise of legislative authority whether under other
Central or State enactments – s. 88 does not exclude recourse to
other remedies created by cognate legislation – Where the cognate
legislation has been enacted by a State legislature, s.88 is an
indicator that Parliament did not wish to oust the legislative power
of the State legislature to enact legislation on cognate or allied
subjects – On facts, State legislature-WB-HIRA has not enacted
cognate or allied legislation but legislation which is identical to
and bodily lifted from the Parliamentary law-RERA – This plainly
implicates the test of repugnancy by setting up a parallel regime
under the State law – State legislature has encroached upon the
legislative authority of Parliament which has supremacy within the
ambit of the subjects falling within the Concurrent List of the Seventh
Schedule – Exercise conducted by the State legislature of doing so,
is plainly unconstitutional – West Bengal Housing Industry
Regulation Act, 2017.
Salient features of RERA Act – Explained.
Constitution of India:
Art. 254 – Repugnancy – Salient features of Art. 254 – Stated.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
615
Doctrine of repugnancy u/Art. 254(1) – Held: Operates within
the fold of the Concurrent List – Clause (1) of Art. 254 envisages
that the law enacted by Parliament will prevail and the law made by
the legislature of the State shall be void “to the extent of repugnancy”
– Clause (1) does not define what is meant by repugnancy – Clause
(1) indicate that the provision d

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.