[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL WRIT No. 4297 of 1997 NARAYAN SINGH MANAKLAO V/S STATE & ORS Mr. HANUMAN KHOKHAR, for the appellant Mr. M.R. SINGHVI, for the respondent Date of Order : 2.9.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. ORDER ----- This public interest writ has been filed claiming following reliefs:- “(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the State Government may be restrained from issuing any further licences for consumption of poppy straw. (ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the State Government may further be restrained from issuing contracts for sale of poppy straw to the excise contractors. Any sort of trade or activity in poppy straw being carried on under the directions/ licences issued by the State Government be retrained.” The averments of the petitioner, in this regard are, that reference has been made to enactments of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereafter to be referred to as 'the Act') and its objects. Then, drug abuse and drug trafficking has been highlighted. It is also pleaded that even though major offences are non-bailable by [2] virtue of higher level of punishment, but on technical ground accused are being released on bail. Then, it is pleaded, that State Government is issuing licenses, by enacting provisions being Rajasthan Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 (hereafter to be referred to as 'the Rules'), which permit such trade. Then, it is pleaded that under Rule 45, the permit for possession of lanced poppy heads is granted to consumer of poppy straw, on the recommendation of the medical officer, after carrying out requisite tests, and by proviso to this, it was provided, that the quantity shall be progressively and automatically be reduced by 1/8th every quarter, and this shall be explicitly stated in the permit itself. It may be noticed, that this writ was filed on 26.11.1997, while this proviso had been deleted on 30.08.1990 itself. Be that as it may. Then, some provisions of Rule 44 have been referred, and then it is pleaded, that to the best of the knowledge of the petitioner, no reduction in the quantity of permit amount has been done by the State Government, resulting into total violation of proviso to Rule 45, which clearly amounts to State sponsored Narcotic Trafficking, and is liable to be interfered by this Court. Then, Article 38 & 47 of the Constitution, being directive principles, have been referred to. Then it is pleaded, that licenses issued to the Contractors for sale of poppy straw, is for huge amount of poppy straw, which is disproportionate with the amount of poppy straw being issued to the addicts, under which circumstances, it becomes apparent, that rest quantity is liable to be mis-utilized and used for illicit purposes of smuggling etc. Inter-alia, with these [3] averments, the writ petition has been filed. In the reply, it is contended, that the Rules have been framed in exercise of powers under Sec.9, read with Sec.76, and that looking to the necessity, the amendments have been introduced in Rule 44 & 45, from time to time. It is also pleaded, that the reduction of the quantity of the drug, cannot be confined to the periodical reduction, but it has to be taken up medically, as has been done by the respondent, and that the proviso, as enacted, turned out to be very difficult, to confine an addict to the definite period, and the prescription of the drug cannot not be confined to a fixed period, and therefore, the quantity has been rightly confined to the recommendation of the medical officer. It is pleaded, that reduction in quantity is a gradual process, and that the State is quite watchful, as regards the outcome of the drugs, for which purpose different departments have been deputed, who are quite vigilant to deal with the criminal offenders relating to drug consumption. It is pleaded, that the averments made are bald, without any data. Inter-alia with this, it was prayed, that the writ petition may be dismissed. Then, a further reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1 & 2 on 02.07.1999, contending, that relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot practically be granted, because poppy straw is regulated by Rajasthan Excise Act, and for that purpose licence is issued, and that the petitioner's prayer to restrain the State Government from issuing any further licence for consumption of poppy straw [4] is baseless and illegal, as this prayer virtually amounts to staying the operation of certain parts of the Excise Act, which cannot be done. Thereafter, on 04.02.2004, certain additional submissions were made purporting to reproduce the provisions of Rule 44 & 45, and to explain the purposes thereof. Then, Annex.R/1 has been produced, being Gazette Notification dated 30.08.1990, deleting the proviso below Rule 45 (vii). We have heard learned counsel, appearing before us, and have gone through the papers available. At the outset we may observe, that the whole thrust of the writ petition appears to be on the basis of the proviso to Rule 45, which provides for gradual reduction of quantity of consumption, to the extent of 1/8 every quarter, and on that basis, a big boggy has been put, to the effect, that with the passage of time the consumption would stop, while the State Government is continuing to issue licences. Suffice it to say, that the proviso, had been deleted, much more then half a decade before filing of the writ petition. Thus it is clear, that the writ petition is based on misconception of legal provisions, relied upon. So far as the possibility of pilferage of the substance, being licensed to be sold is concerned, for that, necessary safeguards are already there, and simply because there is a possibility of some pilferage going un- trapped or unpunished, on that basis, the implementation of [5] the legislation cannot be stopped, even under PIL. The reasons for requirement of issuing licences for wholesale and retail vending of lanced poppy heads, so also issuing permits to the addicts have sufficiently been highlighted by the respondents, and we find, that there are sufficient safeguards in issuing the permits. May be, that the petitioner claims to be a public spirited person, interested in altogether stopping the consumption of opium, or poppy, and its derivatives, but then, petitioner cannot be conceded a right, even under PIL Jurisdiction, to ask this Court, to altogether restrain the respondents, from issuing any licences for wholesale or retail vending of lanced poppy heads, or for that matter, the poppy straw. Thus, we do not find any force in the writ petition, the same is therefore dismissed. (KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. jpa/