State revisional power survives despite Central law, with Article 254 inconsistency limited to the conflicting field.

A State revisional provision is displaced under Article 254 only to the extent of direct inconsistency with a later Parliamentary law; where the two enactments can operate together, the State law survives in the remaining field. Repeal by implication is not readily inferred, and a Central revision scheme does not automatically render the State provision exhaustive. On that basis, Bihar section 64A was not wholly void or repealed, but inoperative only where it conflicted with the Central provision. The State Government of Bihar therefore retained jurisdiction to revise the appellate order in the present matter.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Bihar section 64A was repugnant to Central section 64A and therefore void to the extent of inconsistency under Article 254 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether Central section 64A repealed Bihar section 64A by necessary implication; (iii) Whether the State Government of Bihar could revise the appellate order in the present matter.

Issue (i): Whether Bihar section 64A was repugnant to Central section 64A and therefore void to the extent of inconsistency under Article 254 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Repugnancy exists only where there is direct conflict, where Parliament has occupied the field, or where the two enactments cannot operate together. The revisional power under the Bihar provision was wide, but it could be read down so as not to cover matters for which the Central Act had already provided an appeal or revision. To that extent only, the State provision could not operate inconsistently with the Central provision.

Conclusion: Bihar section 64A was not wholly void; it was void only to the limited extent of actual inconsistency with the Central provision.

Issue (ii): Whether Central section 64A repealed Bihar section 64A by necessary implication.

Analysis: Repeal by implication is not readily inferred. The Central enactment did not expressly repeal the Bihar provision, and the mere fact that both provisions dealt with revisions did not show an intention to make the Central law exhaustive. The two provisions could operate together, except in the limited area where the Central law governed appealable or revisable orders under the Central scheme.

Conclusion: Bihar section 64A was not repealed by necessary implication.

Issue (iii): Whether the State Government of Bihar could revise the appellate order in the present matter.

Analysis: The appellate order was passed in a matter to which the Bihar revisional provision continued to apply, subject to the limited restriction arising from the Central scheme. The State Government therefore had jurisdiction to exercise revision in the present case.

Conclusion: The State Government of Bihar was competent to revise the appellate order.

Final Conclusion: The State revisional provision survived, save to the extent of inconsistency, and the impugned High Court view on competence was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A State law is displaced under Article 254 only to the extent of direct inconsistency with a later Parliamentary law; absent express repeal or an irreconcilable conflict, both enactments may continue to operate within their respective spheres.

---