Introductory The object of this paper is to present a critical examination of the interpretation put on Article 254(1) by the Division Bench of the Supreme Court, speaking through A. P. Sen, J. (with him, E. S. Venkataramiah and R. B. Misra JJ.), in Mess. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 1019, and to suggest grounds on which a Constitution Bench of the Court might, hopefully, review that interpretation. That interpretation is best stated in the words of A. P. Sen, J., himself : "The question of repugnancy under Article 254(1) between a law made by Parliament and a law made by the State Legislature arises only in case both the legislations occupy the same field with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, and there is direct conflict between the two laws. It is only when both these requirements are fulfilled that the State law will, to the extent of the repugnancy, become void."