Judgment : D.H. Waghela, C.J. (Oral) : 1. This petition in the nature of public interest litigation is filed by the petitioner, who is admittedly a practicing advocate. It is directed against inaction of the government authorities in the matter of enforcing the provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder. 2. During the course of argument, learned counsel appearing as petitioner, party-in-person, conceded the legal position that several authorities are designated and empowered to enforce the provisions of the aforesaid law and the Rules made thereunder, and he has not made any representation before such appropriate authorities with clear statements of facts and alleged violations of particular provision. The petitioner, however, attempted to bring home the serious consequences of the spread of addiction of tobacco in one form or the other and expressed his apprehension about the future of the next generation. 3. Upon notice having been issued by previous order dated 13.02.2013, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 12 have appeared and generally, fairly conceded that the aforesaid legal provisions were required to be fully and properly enforced with a view to serving the purpose and intent of the aforesaid Act. It was also submitted that the Central Government was aware and active about the requirement of enforcing mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Infact, this year itself the latest "Guidelines for Law Enforcers for effective implementation of Tobacco Control Laws, 2013" have been issued by the National Tobacco Control Programme, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. It was further submitted that the respondents cannot have any objection to the guidelines being followed and the legal provisions being duly enforced. 4. Learned counsel Ms. Vidya Venugopal appearing for respondent No.9 submitted that the Advertising Standards Council of India was willing to take cognizance of any violation of the advertising norms and take up the matter with appropriate government agencies for stringent legal action. 5. 4. Learned counsel Ms. Vidya Venugopal appearing for respondent No.9 submitted that the Advertising Standards Council of India was willing to take cognizance of any violation of the advertising norms and take up the matter with appropriate government agencies for stringent legal action. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State Government submitted that the State Government will take the concerns expressed in the petition at the appropriate level as a representation and issue appropriate specific guidelines for the purpose of taking cognizance of violation of the provisions of the aforesaid Act and Rules made thereunder, so as to ensure punishment for violation of any of the Rules. 6. In view of the above submissions, related in brief, no further general direction is required to be issued as prayed in prayer Clause (a) to (z) in the petition. It may be pertinent to note, before parting with the present petition, that when specific offences are defined and law enforcement agencies are designated under the Act and the Rules, it is not appropriate and in the fitness of things to pray for or issue any general direction in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court only because an individual thinks it fit to take it up as a public cause. With these observations and expecting the respondents authorities to take up the enforcement of the Act and the Rules with the earnestness that it deserves, the petition is disposed, with no order as to costs.