In State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal, (1996) 5 SCC 60, it was held as follows:
“As pointed out by the Court, the process of substitution of statutory provision consists of two steps: first, the old rule is made to cease to exist and, next, the new rule is brought into existence in its place. In other words, the substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision and its replacement by the new provision. As regards repeal of a statute, the law is thus stated in Sutherland on Statutory Construction:
“2042. The effect of the repeal of a Statute where neither a saving clause nor a general saving statute exists to prescribe the governing rule for the effect of the repeal, is to destroy the effectiveness of the repealed act in futuro and to divest the right to proceed under the Statute, which, except as to proceedings past and closed, is considered as if it had never existed.”
In Qudrat Ullah v. Municipal Board, Bareilly, (1974) 1 SCC 202, it was held as under: “This means that as a result of repeal of a statute as repealed ceases to exist with effect from the date of such repeal but the repeal does not affect the previous operation of the law which has been repealed during the period it was operative prior to the date of such repeal.” State of Rajasthan v. Trilok Ram, (2019) 10 SCC 383.