The High Court held that while the Crops Act provides an internal appeal mechanism to the Cabinet Secretary for grievances regarding licensing, an exception to the exhaustion doctrine applied because the Cabinet Secretary lacks jurisdiction to award damages for constitutional violations, which were sought in the petition. However, the Court found that the doctrine of sub-judice applied, as the core issue—the validity and transfer of the EIA licence—was already the subject of pending litigation in other courts, including an appeal. The Court further determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate with precision how its constitutional rights under Articles 27, 35, 40, 47, and 50 were violated, as the petitioner had access to the EIA licence and no discrimination or denial of due process was established. Consequently, the petition was dismissed both on grounds of sub-judice and on the merits for lack of proof of constitutional violations.