1 2025:CGHC:38954-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 200 of 2025 Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale (In Person) S/o Late Shri Ashok Kale Aged About 46 Years R/o Kale Wada, Tilak Nagar, Main Road, Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495001 Mob. 9425530260 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Govt. ofof Chhattisgarh, Mantralay, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Law And Legislation Dept., Govt. of Chhattisgarh Mantralay, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Commercial Tax (Excise), Govt. of Chhattisgarh Mantralay, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture Dept., Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Mantralay, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Forest And Climate Change Dept., Govt. of Chhattisgarh Mantralay, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Finance Dept., Govt. of Chhattisgarh Mantralay, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture Dept., Govt. of Chhattisgarh Mantralay, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 8 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Bio Diversity Board, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Mantralay, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.08.07 10:52:15 +0530 2 For Petitioner In person For Respondent/State Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. (Cause title taken from CIS) Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06.08.2025 1. By this present review petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “1. Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to review the order pass by the bench & set-aside order dated 07.07.2025. 2. Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to pass order to restore the writ petition WPPIL No.09/2025: and provide the relief mentioned there in 3. Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with the cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the Applicant.” 2. The petitioner in person would submit that he does not wish to cultivate cannabis at his own land for this trial purpose, but at the dedicated assigned places by respondent either at agriculture college fields or remote forest land with strict monitoring of researchers & authorities. Commercialization of such plant will take after such trials will be concluded. Once the researchers and authorities will conclude that this plant is having ample industrial potential, then only it can be permitted for cultivation by State 3 farmers. The PIL is not for decriminalizing or relegalization of the cannabis (Consumptions or smoking of any kind), but it is about tapping the commercial & medicinal potential of industrial hemp which can out-compete the summer paddy cultivation, if the aspect is considered & develop eco system for State’s prosperity. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions and submits that earlier the PIL was dismissed after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after due consideration, this Court was not satisfied that the PIL was a genuine petition which has been filed in public interest, hence, the decisions passed by this Court is just and proper and does not require any interference to review the petition. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the review petition as also the order under review dated 07/07/2025 passed in WPPIL No.9/2025. 5. The scope of review jurisdiction is narrow and confined to errors apparent on the face of the record or if a relevant provision of law had been overlooked. In other words, it is only a patent error which is amenable to review and not an error which may have to be discovered by a process of reasoning and what may be called a virtual re-hearing of the matter. In the garb of a Review Petition, this Court cannot sit in judgment over its own order. Therefore, we are not satisfied that the Review application is maintainable. If the petitioner is aggrieved, the remedy is different. 4 6. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law as has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692). 7. The ground raised by the review petitioner in this review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the order under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 8. As an upshot, the review petition is dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/Amardeep