ORDER : 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties for some time. 2. In the instant case, we are concerned with an amendment introduced by the Kerala Legislature by the Kerala Finance Act, 2002 incorporating in the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 (Kerala Act 23 of 1975), Section 4(l)(a) which is as follows: "4. (1)(a) Where a chitties is registered outside the State and twenty percent or more of the subscribers are persons normally residing in the State, the foreman of the chitty shall open a branch in the State and obtain sanction and registration under the provisions of this Act." 3. The said amendment was challenged by the respondents herein and one of the grounds urged on their behalf was that the provisions of the Kerala Act were inconsistent with the provisions of a Central Act enacted by Parliament, namely, the Chit Funds Act, 1982. It is admitted before us that under Section 1(3) of the said Act, the Act shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint, and different dates may be appointed for different States. It is also not disputed before us that the notification under Section 1(3) of the Act has not been issued so far by the Central Government. Hence, the Central Act has not come into force in the State of Kerala. 4. Section 90 of the Central Act which deals with repeal and savings expressly repeals the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 (Kerala Act 23 of 1975) subject to the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, Writ Appeal No. 551 of 2004, decided on 31.5.2005(Ker) of the Kerala High Court, in the instant case, have taken the view that the question of repugnancy between the Central Act and the State Act does not arise, since the Central Act has not been brought into force in the State of Kerala, and if and when it is brought into force, by reason of Section 90 of the Act, the Kerala Act shall stand repealed. It is, therefore, not within the contemplation of the Central Act that the State and the Central Act shall operate at the same time. It is, therefore, not within the contemplation of the Central Act that the State and the Central Act shall operate at the same time. Till such time, as the Central Act is not brought into force in the State of Kerala, the State Act will operate and when the Central Government issues a notification bringing into force the Central Act in the State of Kerala, the Central Act shall prevail and the State Act shall stand repealed. 5. Mr C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of some of the respondents, however, has brought to our notice a decision of this Court rendered by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges in Pt. Rishikesh v. Salma Begum (1995) 4 SCC 718 , wherein this Court dealing with the amendments to the Civil Procedure Code, held as follows: (SCC pp. 728-30, paras 17-18) "17. Section 97(1), with a marginal note 'repeal and savings', envisages that any amendment made or any provision incorporated in the principal Act by a State Legislature or a High Court before the commencement of the Central Act shall, except insofar as amendment or provision is consistent with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by the Central Act, stand repealed. The emphasis as rightly stressed by Shri Parag is 'any amendment to Civil Procedure Code made by the State Legislature or a provision by the High Court' before the 'commencement' of this Act stood repealed. It is to be noted here that the Central Act is an amending Act, not a repealing and consolidating statute to supplant the principal Act, namely, Act 5 of 1908. Since Civil Procedure Code is a concurrent subject, Parliament and the legislature of a State or a High Court in respect of orders in the Schedule are competent to enact or amend Civil Procedure Code respectively. In fact several local amendments made to Civil Procedure Code before the commencement of the Central Act do exist. Pursuant to the recommendation made by the Law Commission of India to shorten the litigation, Parliament made the Central Act to streamline the procedure. It is true that inconsistency in the operation of the Central and the State law would generally arise only after the respective Acts commenced their operation. Section 3(13) of the General Clauses Act defines 'commencement' to mean the day on which the Act or Regulation comes into force. It is true that inconsistency in the operation of the Central and the State law would generally arise only after the respective Acts commenced their operation. Section 3(13) of the General Clauses Act defines 'commencement' to mean the day on which the Act or Regulation comes into force. The Founding Fathers were cognizant to the distinction between making the law and commencement of the operation of the Act or Regulation. Article 254, clauses (1) and (2) and in a way Section 97 of the Central Act are also alive to the distinction between making the law and commencement of the law. In Collins English Dictionary at p. 889 make' is defined to mean, to 'cause to exist', 'to bring about' or 'to produce'. In Black's Law Dictionary,, 6th Edn., at p. 955, 'make' is defined as 'to cause to exist ... to do in form of law; to perform with due formalities: to execute in legal form; ...'. The verb 'made' in Article 254 brings out the constitutional emanation that it is the making of the law by the respective constituent legislatures, namely. Parliament and the State Legislature as decisive factor. Commencement of the Act is distinct from making the law. As soon as assent is given by the President to the law passed by Parliament it becomes law. Commencement of the Act may be expressed in the Act itself, namely, from the moment the assent was given by the President and published in the Gazette, it becomes operative. The operation may be postponed giving power to the executive or delegated legislation to bring the Act into force at a particular time unless otherwise provided. The Central Act came into operation on the date it received the assent of the President and shall be published in the Gazette and immediately on the expiration of the day preceding its commencement it became operative. Therefore, from midnight on the day on which the Central Act was published in the Gazette of India, it became the law. Admittedly, the Central Act was assented to by the President on 9-9-1976 and was published in the Gazette of India on 10-9-1976. Therefore, from midnight on the day on which the Central Act was published in the Gazette of India, it became the law. Admittedly, the Central Act was assented to by the President on 9-9-1976 and was published in the Gazette of India on 10-9-1976. This would be clear when we see the legislative procedure envisaged in Articles 107 to 109 and assent of the President under Article 111 which says that when a Bill has been passed by the House of the People, it shall be presented to the President and the President shall either give his assent to the Bill or withhold his assent therefrom. The proviso is not material for the purpose of this case. Once the President gives assent it becomes law and becomes effective when it is published in the Gazette. The making of the law is thus complete unless it is amended in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Articles 107 to 109 of the Constitution. Equally similar is the procedure of the State Legislature. Inconsistency or incompatibility in the law on concurrent subject, by operation of Article 254, clauses (1) and (2) does not depend upon the commencement of the respective Acts made by Parliament and the State Legislature. Therefore, the emphasis on commencement of the Act and inconsistency in the operation thereafter does not become relevant when its voidness is required to be decided on the anvil of Article 254(1). Moreover, the legislative business of making law entailing with valuable public time and enormous expenditure would not be made to depend on the volition of the executive to notify the commencement of the Act. Incompatibility of repugnancy would be apparent when the effect of the operation is visualised by comparative study. 18. ... The legislative business done by the appropriate State Legislature cannot be reduced to redundance by the executive inaction or choice by the Central Government by issuing different dates for the commencement of different provisions of the Central Act. The Constitution, therefore, made a clear demarcation between making the law and commencement of the law which, therefore, bears relevance for giving effect to Article 254." 6. The Constitution, therefore, made a clear demarcation between making the law and commencement of the law which, therefore, bears relevance for giving effect to Article 254." 6. We entertain some reservation in accepting the principle as propounded in the aforesaid judgment since we are of the view that unless the Central Act and the State Act can possibly operate at the same time, the question of repugnancy may not arise at all, and therefore, in a case where the Central Act has not been brought into force by issuance of notification as required under the Central Act, the question of repugnancy between the Central Act and the State Act may not arise at all, particularly, when the Central Act contains a provision which has the effect of repealing the State Act once the Central Act is brought into force. if the State Act is held to be eclipsed by the Central Act and therefore inoperative, it will result in a legislative void since the State Act cannot operate on account of inconsistency and the Central Act has not been brought into force. 7. However, in view of the observations and the principle as laid down in the aforesaid judgment of this Court, we consider it appropriate that these appeals may be considered by a larger Bench. Let the matters be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate directions.