JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaaik, J. - The petitioner is an Advocate practising in this Court and challenges the constitutional validity of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas (Repeal) Act. 1992 (Orissa Act 33 of 1992) (hereinafter referred to as the "Repealing Act") on the ground that the assent of the President not having been received, the same is hit by Art. 254(2) of the Constitution of India and consequently is ultra vires the Constitution. 2. Though in the writ application several allegations of mala fides have been made, but at the hearing of the writ petition, those contentions had not been advanced and only the alleged constitutional infirmity, as stated earlier was presssed into service. Mr. Panda, the petitioner, vehemently argued that the Orissa. Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1970 (Orissa Act 1 of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as the "Repealed Act") having received the assent of the President under Art. 254(2) of the Constitution/The Repealing Act, the validity of which is being challenged, also required the assent of the President and the same not having been obtained, the Repealing Act is ultra vires. 3. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Art. 254 of the Constitution of India is extracted herein below in extenso : "254 (1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of any existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of Clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature or such State, or, as the case my be, the existing law shall prevail and the law mads by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. (2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State : Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State." An analysis of the aforesaid constitutional provision indicates that Art. 254(1) lays down a general Rule and Clause (2) of the said Article is an exception to the Article and the proviso qualifies the exception. Mr. Panda urges that the Repealed Act must be held to be an existing law within the meaning of Art. 254(2) of the Constitution and the subject-matter being covered by the Concurrent List, the Repealing Act having been passed by the State Legislature, but not having received the assent of the President must be held to be ultra vires. According to Mr. Panda, the legislation is one in relation to matters specified in Entries-1 and 8 II of the Concurrent List in List-Ill of Schedule-VII of the Constitution and as such Art. 254(2) is attracted. In our considered opinion/the aforesaid submission is based upon a thorough misconception of the requirement of the Presidential assent as well as of the expression "existing law" contained in Art. 254(2) of the Constitution. There cannot be any manner of doubt that when a State Legislature makes a law in respect to a matter enumerated in the Concurrent List and the said law contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by the Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the State Legislature unless receives the assent of the President cannot prevail in the State. The Repealed Act is neither an "earlier law" made by the Parliament nor an "existing law" within the ambit of Art. 254(2) of the Constitution. -The term "existing law" refers only to a statutory law passed before the commencement of the Constitution. The Repealed Act is neither an "earlier law" made by the Parliament nor an "existing law" within the ambit of Art. 254(2) of the Constitution. -The term "existing law" refers only to a statutory law passed before the commencement of the Constitution. The Repealed Act had been enacted by the State Legislature in the year 1970. It made provisions for appointment and functioning of certain authority for the investigation of administrative action taken by or on behalf of the Government or certain public authorities in certain cases. Since the enquiries contemplated under the Repealed Act Would fall within the domain of the criminal law including matters in the Indian Penal Code and as such are enquiries for the purposes of matters specified in Entries 1 and 8 of the Concurrent List, the legislation received the assent of the President so that the legislation remains valid and operative in the State of Orissa. But the said Repealed Act neither can be held to be an existing law law can it be held to be a law made by the Parliament and, therefore, the Repealing Act instead of creating any repugnancy removes the repugnancy, if any, and consequently it does not require any Presidential assent and Art. 254(2) of the Constitution is not attracted at all. The Repealed Act had received the assent of the President as the provisions contained therein were considered to be repugnant to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Indian Penal Code, but the Repealing Act is intended to wipe off those repugnancies and. therefore, question of obtaining the Presidential assent thereon in terms of Art. 254(2} of the Constitution does not arise. An amending enactment would require the assent of the Persident only if there is anything in the provision of that enactment which is in conflict with or repugnant to the Act of the Central Legislature, but as has been stated earlier, the Repealing Act repeals the Act which had contained provisions contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Indian Penal Code, and as such had obtained the assent of the President. Thus the Repealing Act fully wipes off the repugnancy or inconsistency and consequently, Art. 254(2) of the Constitution is not attracted to the said Repealing Act. Thus the Repealing Act fully wipes off the repugnancy or inconsistency and consequently, Art. 254(2) of the Constitution is not attracted to the said Repealing Act. In any view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the Repealing Act validity of which is being challenged does not attract the provision of Art. 254(2) of the Constitution and as such, cannot be held to be constitutionally invalid on the ground of lack of Presidential assent. The Repealing Act does not create any repugnancy and on the contrary it removes the repugnancy, if any, created by the Repealed Act. The Repealed Act is neither a law made by the Parliament nor an existing law. Therefore, absence of the assent of the President does not invalidate the Repealing Act. The writ application accordingly is dismissed, but in the circumstances, there would be no order as to costs. P. Ray, J. 4. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed