1 / 6 2025:CGHC:46710 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 4812 of 2025 Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale (In Person) S/o (Late) Shri Ashok Kale Aged About 46 Years R/o Kale Wade Tilak Nagar, Main Road Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001 Mob-9425530260 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary Govt Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Law And Legislation Dept. Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralay, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Commercial Tax (Excise), Govt Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralay, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Agriculture Dept. Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralay, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Forest And Climate Change Dept. Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralay Naya Raipur (C.G.) 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Finance Dept. Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralay, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Agriculture Dept. Govt. Of Chhattisgarh. Mantralay, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 / 6 8 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Bio Diversity Board Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralay, Naya Raipur (C.G.). ---- Respondents Petitioner-in-Person : Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale For State-Respondent : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 12/09/2025 1. The petitioner has been filed this writ petition on the following relief(s) : “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/directing, as may be necessary, Respondent to decide petitioner’s representation in stipulated times. 10.2 Any other relief/reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. Petitioner in person contended that he is not challenging any particular order of any court authority but he is filling this petition for seeking direction to respondent to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner in office of respondents on 22.02.2024 in which he is requesting respondents to allow / permitting him for cultivation & develop an eco-system of industrial hemp / cannabis, in the state, as 3 / 6 per guidelines laid in NDPS act 1985 & Constitution of India. Hence, this petition. 3. It is further submitted by the petitioner in person that he has filed the representation to all concern authorities & respondents, mentioned above, on 22.02.2024, in personally & taken acknowledgment. But, not a single general or specific action has been taken so far and till date, by the respondents, including not even replying to petitioner. Further, in the said representation, he has highlighted many of benefits of ‘golden plant’, which are supported by many researches and government reports. This indicates that this ‘golden plant’ has potential of being “New Generation Gold Mines”, for farmers of Chhattisgarh. He further contended that according to the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short, ‘NDPS Act’) mass cultivation of hemp for horticultural and industrial uses is permitted by Indian law. But, Sections 10 and 14 of the NDPS Act, which gives the State Government the power to decide the limits within which licences may be given for its cultivation has never been used and no regulation or rules have been made by the State of Chhattisgarh to facilitate medical or industrial use of the plant. 4. Petitioner in person further stated that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (for short, ‘FASSAI’) has published the notification 4 / 6 mentioning “the hemp seed, seed oil and hemp flour shall be sold as food or used as an ingredient in a food for sale subjected to confirming standard.” Also, Ministry of Aayush, Govt. of India, has issued as order dated 07.08.2024, indicating fresh guidelines for medicines using hemp oil need Central Government permission, which shows government also knows the benefits of it. He would submit that the government has categorized these hemp in the Goods & Service Tax Code (for short, ‘GST’). This indicate that government, whether Central or State, are getting earning from these commodities via trading, importing & exporting and other commercial activity. He also submits that there are many references in various holy books, including but not limited to, Sushruta Samhita, Sama Veda, Yajur Veda, & others, which indicate important heritage of cannabis in Indian culture & medicine. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the petitioner and contended that this petition is nothing but an attempt by the petitioner to any how get permission from the State to cultivate the cannabis and to carry on the commercial transaction of the product. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5 / 6 7. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and gone through the record, it is matter of grave concern that the consumption of narcotic and psychotropic substances in the State of Chhattisgarh has increased manifolds in the recent years and it not only has evil effects on the body and mind of the person consuming it, but it ruins the entire family and society as well. The offences relating to contraband and psychotropic substances is on upsurge in the State. Number of instances have been reported wherein crimes are committed by an offender in a state of inebriation without understanding the consequences of their act. It not only lands the offender to incarceration, but also ruins the entire family as when the sole bread earner is lodged in a jail, his family is the biggest sufferer. Under the garb of this public interest litigation petition, this Court cannot encourage any such activity nor issue any direction to the State, which may turn to be a disaster in future. The reasons assigned by the petitioner to permit cultivation of cannabis is totally frivolous and baseless. 8. The petitioner does not have any locus standi and it is not a genuine petition. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions which fall squarely within the domain of legislative and executive policy of the State. Courts cannot direct the Government to make policy decisions, particularly in sensitive areas like narcotic control. 6 / 6 The cultivation of hemp is prohibited under the NDPS Act, save for specific permitted purposes and through statutory procedure. Cannabis cultivation is generally prohibited except for medical, scientific, industrial, or horticultural purposes and only with Government authorization. The petitioner has not followed the appropriate legal mechanisms. The present petition which can be termed as misuse of judicial process. 9. It is also pertinent to mention here that previously the petitioner has filed a pubic interest litigation bearing WP(PIL) No.09 of 2025 before this Court which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 07.07.2025. 10. In view of the aforesaid observations, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant