Concurrent List real estate regulation prevails where a State law duplicates and materially departs from Central legislation.

The West Bengal housing regulation law was held to fall within Entries 6 and 7 of the Concurrent List, not Entry 24 of the State List, because its true subject was regulation of real estate transactions, contracts, disclosures, registration, duties, remedies, and penalties. It was also found repugnant to the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 under Article 254 because it substantially duplicated the Central law while altering material safeguards and procedures, creating a parallel regime on the same field without Presidential assent. The State legislation was therefore declared constitutionally invalid, while past registrations, sanctions, and permissions were protected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017 was referable to Entry 24 of List II or, in substance, to Entries 6 and 7 of List III; (ii) Whether the West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017 was repugnant to the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 under Article 254 of the Constitution in the absence of Presidential assent.

Issue (i): Whether the West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017 was referable to Entry 24 of List II or, in substance, to Entries 6 and 7 of List III.

Analysis: The State enactment could not be sustained as a law on "industry" under Entry 24 of List II, since the constitutional meaning of "industry" does not extend to regulation of the contractual and transactional framework of real estate development. The provisions of the State enactment and the Central enactment were directed to the same subject, namely regulation of promoters, allottees, agents, disclosures, registration, duties, remedies, and penalties in real estate projects. The correct constitutional characterization was therefore under Entries 6 and 7 of List III, dealing with transfer of property and contracts.

Conclusion: The State enactment was not saved by Entry 24 of List II and had to be tested as a Concurrent List law.

Issue (ii): Whether the West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017 was repugnant to the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 under Article 254 of the Constitution in the absence of Presidential assent.

Analysis: The Central enactment was intended to create a uniform national regulatory framework for real estate, while still allowing co-existence with other cognate laws. The State enactment, however, substantially reproduced the Central law and in material respects deviated from it by omitting safeguards and altering key provisions relating to parking areas, garages, force majeure, advisory structure, compounding, adjudication, and criminal process. The overlap was not merely incidental or cognate but amounted to a parallel and mutually exclusive regime on the same subject matter. Since the State law occupied the same field as the Parliamentary law and was inconsistent in material respects, it could not stand without Presidential assent under Article 254(2), which had not been obtained.

Conclusion: The State enactment was repugnant to the Central enactment and unconstitutional.

Final Conclusion: The State housing legislation was struck down as constitutionally invalid, and the earlier State enactment was not revived; past registrations, sanctions, and permissions were protected from disruption.

Ratio Decidendi: A State law on a Concurrent List subject cannot constitutionally create a parallel regime that substantially duplicates and materially departs from a Parliamentary law occupying the same subject matter, unless it has received Presidential assent under Article 254(2).

---