JUDGMENT : SHAJI P. CHALY, J. 1. This is a public interest writ petition filed by a person claiming to be a social worker and a resident of Malappuram District. According to the petitioner, he is an anti-tobacco activist and several of his articles in that regard were published in the prominent Malayalam dailies. 2. The subject issues raised arise under the provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTPA), hereinafter called Act 2003. According to the petitioner even though the petitioner and other interested colleagues have conducted protests against use of tobacco and sought for correction in the matter of sale of the tobacco products in terms of the provisions of Act 2003, the authorities have not cared to take any action and therefore the petitioner has no other remedy than to approach this Court. The paramount issue projected is that, as per the provisions of the Act 2003, even the individual cigarettes should contain the statutory warning as stipulated under the Act in question so as to serve the purpose of statutory warning. In the said backdrop petitioner has raised the following contentions. 3. That, as per the statistics of the tobacco free union, over one million people die from tobacco related diseases in India every year. The work of the Tobacco Free Union and their statistics brought wide discussion and thinking in all the countries. The Union of India has also framed some stringent rules to restrict and reduce the use of tobacco in India including the Act 2003. Even though tobacco is not banned, several restrictions were made to reduce the use of tobacco among the people of India. 4. That the Act, 2003, is the major enactment in our country in this regard. One of the main objectives of the above Act is to ensure effective protection to non-smokers from involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke and to protect children and young people from being addicted to the use of tobacco. There are substantial tobacco free ground policy tool kits in the above Act. The Central Government has enacted the Act 2003 pursuant to the resolution passed by 39th and 43rd World Health Assemblies and based on Constitutional mandate contained in Article 47 of the Constitution of India regarding improvement of public health. There are substantial tobacco free ground policy tool kits in the above Act. The Central Government has enacted the Act 2003 pursuant to the resolution passed by 39th and 43rd World Health Assemblies and based on Constitutional mandate contained in Article 47 of the Constitution of India regarding improvement of public health. Moreover, it is enacted to effectively curb the menace of cigarette and other tobacco smoking among people, which has a detrimental and deleterious effect on the life and liberty of the people of the country. After enactment of the COTPA in 2003, several amendments were made to the Act so as to impose stringent conditions in production, supply, distribution and exhibition of tobacco and tobacco products. 5. Petitioner has further submitted that it is an admitted fact that cigarette smoking is injurious to health and it causes significant problem to the smoker as well as to the other people. The smoker directly gets injured from cigarette smoking as the first hand smoker by way of cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, tuberculosis, cancer and some other diseases. But at the same time, it affects the secondhand smoker also. Secondhand smoke exposure is a significant problem in India both indoor and outdoor. A study has shown that 70% to 80% of the male smokers regularly smoke at home. Three in every 10 adults working indoors are exposed to secondhand smoke. In home, secondhand smoke exposure remain high, especially among children. Apart from the secondhand smoke, there is third hand smoke, which is the fraction of tobacco smoke that persist in indoor environment after smoking. This remains even after most of the airborne components of the smoke have cleared. Children are at increased risk when exposed to third hand smoke toxicants due to their exploratory behavior and metabolic activity. There is increased risk of cancer in children due to third hand smoke. 6. Petitioner has also submitted that Section 4 of the Act, 2003, prohibits smoking in public places. Section 5 of the Act prohibits advertisement of cigarettes and other tobacco products. Section 6 of the Act prohibits sale of cigarette or other tobacco products to a person below the age of 18 years and in particular area. 6. Petitioner has also submitted that Section 4 of the Act, 2003, prohibits smoking in public places. Section 5 of the Act prohibits advertisement of cigarettes and other tobacco products. Section 6 of the Act prohibits sale of cigarette or other tobacco products to a person below the age of 18 years and in particular area. As per this section, no person shall sell, offer for sale or permit sale of cigarettes or any other tobacco products to any person who is under 18 years of age and in an area within a radius of 100 yards of any educational institutions. 7. It is the further submission of the petitioner that apart from the above prohibitions, Act, 2003, restricts trade and commerce in and production, supply and distribution of cigarette and other tobacco products by virtue of Section 7 of the Act. Accordingly, no person shall directly or indirectly, produce, supply or distribute cigarettes or any other tobacco products unless every package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products produced, supplied or distributed by him bears thereon, or on its label such specified warning including a pictorial warning as may be prescribed. Without the aforesaid warning nobody could carry on trade or commerce in cigarettes or any other tobacco products. Section 8 of the Act, stipulates that the specified warning on a package of cigarette or any other tobacco products shall be legible and prominent, conspicuous as to size and color and in such style or type of lettering as to be boldly and clearly presented in distinct contrast to any other type, lettering or graphic material used on package or its label and shall be printed, painted or inscribed on the package in a colour which contrasts conspicuously with the background of the package or its labels. It also specifies that the warning should be printed, painted or inscribed on a package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products. 8. The basic contention of the petitioner is that the above stringent conditions are prescribed by the legislator only with the intention to reduce use of tobacco in our country. The tobacco manufactures are also following the prescribed rule in the cigarette packets. Even though the cigarette packets contain the warning stipulated in the Act, 2003, the individual cigarette sticks do not contain such a warning. 9. The tobacco manufactures are also following the prescribed rule in the cigarette packets. Even though the cigarette packets contain the warning stipulated in the Act, 2003, the individual cigarette sticks do not contain such a warning. 9. Petitioner further stated strenuously that the intention of the legislature was to impose such a condition on sale of individual cigarettes to clearly make aware the severity and seriousness of the injury of use of tobacco to the people who are consuming the same. It is true that when a customer purchases a pack of cigarettes, he will get the warning message, since the message and picture is printed on the cigarette packet. But when a customer purchases a single stick of cigarette, he will not get the warning message since there is no warning message printed or inscribed on the single stick of cigarette. Therefore, the sale of loose cigarettes is against the provisions in the Cigarettes in the Act, 2003, since there is no warning message in the single cigarette. 10. It is also contended that sale of loose cigarettes will increase the consumption of tobacco as per the study conducted by the Global Adult Tobacco Survey, India, 2009-10. The study found that 57% of cigarette smokers in India brought loose cigarettes. The authors of this study also note that the proportion of buying loose cigarettes decreased with increased level of education and was last among Government employees. This study associated loose cigarette buying with decreased intensity of smoking. By increasing taxes on cigarettes by the government, the bulk buying of cigarettes has decreased but at the same time the buying of single cigarettes has been increased. 11. On a reading of the submissions made by the petitioner it is clear that according to him sale of loose cigarettes is against the provisions of Section 7 of Act 2003 and it is further submitted that Section 7 stipulates that cigarettes or any other tobacco products could not be produced, supplied or distributed without bearing the specified warning on the product; even though the packet of cigarette contain a warning in terms of the provisions of Act 2003, an individual cigarette does not contain such warning in spite of the fact that it is a tobacco product and therefore sale of loose cigarettes is illegal. 12. 12. It is also pointed out that the Government of India is a signatory to the framework convention of tobacco control of the World Health Organization (WHO) and as per the stipulation of the convention, the Union of India has enacted the Act 2003 and imposed restrictions of statutory warning on tobacco products. The regulatory provision is incorporated in the Act 2003 to contain the specified warning with an intention to effectively curb the menace of cigarette smoking and use of other tobacco products which are detrimental to the life and liberty of the people. 13. It is also pointed out that under Article 47 of the Constitution of India, the State has a duty to take steps in the matter of improving public health by bringing prohibition of consumption of intoxicating items which are injurious to health. Therefore to achieve the aims of Article 47 of the Constitution of India, the State has enacted the Act 2003 and unless and until the provisions of the Act are implemented scrupulously and strictly, the purpose would not be achieved and it would also seriously interfere with the aims and intentions of the World Health Organization in accordance with the framework convention of tobacco control of the World Health Organization. 14. In the above canvass the following reliefs are sought for:- “(a) Issue a Writ declaring that sale of loose cigarette is against the provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, since it is without exhibiting the mandatory statutory warning on the tobacco products. (b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to ban sale of loose cigarettes without statutory warning. (c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9 representation within a time stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.” 15. In fact the paramount contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is based on Section 7 (2) of the Act 2003. Before proceeding to consider the issues raised, let us understand the reasons and objects of introducing the Act 2003. 16. In fact the paramount contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is based on Section 7 (2) of the Act 2003. Before proceeding to consider the issues raised, let us understand the reasons and objects of introducing the Act 2003. 16. It is an Act to prohibit the advertisement and provide for the regulation of trade and commerce, production, supply and distribution of cigarettes and other tobacco products and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. It is clear from the objects and reasons that it is on the basis of resolution passed by the 39th World Health Assembly in its 14th Plenary Meeting held on the 15th May, 1986, in order to ensure that effective protection is provided to non smokers of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke and to protect children and end people from being addicted to the use of tobacco, the Act was brought for. Taking into account the said aspect and also the obligations contained under Article 47 of the Constitution of India, the Act 2003 was introduced and the provisions of the Act has come into force on various dates in the year 2007. 17. Cigarette is defined under 3(b) thereunder which includes:- “(i) any roll of tobacco wrapped in paper or in any other substance not containing tobacco. (ii) any roll of tobacco wrapped in any substance containing tobacco, which, by reason of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filter, or its packaging and labeling is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as cigarette, but does not include beedi, cheroot and cigar.” In this context, it is also relevant to refer to the definition of package contained under Section 3(i) of Act 2003 which reads as follows:- “(i) “package” includes a wrapper, box, carton, tin or other container.” 18. The Act has various facets including prohibition of smoking in a public place, prohibition of advertisement of cigarette and other tobacco products, prohibition of sale of cigarette and other tobacco products to a person below the age of 18 years and in particular area. The most important provision that comes into play so far as in the matter of consideration of the writ petition on hand is Section 7 which reads thus:- “7. The most important provision that comes into play so far as in the matter of consideration of the writ petition on hand is Section 7 which reads thus:- “7. Restrictions on trade and commerce in, and production, supply and distribution of cigarettes and other tobacco products: (1) No person shall, directly or indirectly, produce, supply or distribute cigarettes or any other tobacco products unless every package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products produced, supplied or distributed by him bears thereon, or on its label [such specified] warning including a pictorial warning as may be prescribed. (2) No person shall carry on trade or commerce in cigarettes or any other tobacco products unless every package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products sold, supplied or distributed by him bears thereon, or on its label, the specified warning. (3) No person shall import cigarettes or any other tobacco products for distribution or supply for a valuable consideration or for sale in India unless every package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products so imported by him bears thereon, or on its label, the specified warning. (4) The specified warning shall appear on not less than one of the largest panels of the package in which cigarettes or any other tobacco products have been packed for distribution, sale or supply for a valuable consideration. (5) No person shall, directly or indirectly, produce, supply or distribute cigarettes or any other tobacco products unless every package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products produced, supplied or distributed by him indicates thereon, or on its label, the nicotine and tar contents on each cigarette or as the case may be on other tobacco products along with the maximum permissible limits thereof: Provided that the nicotine and tar contents shall not exceed the maximum permissible quantity thereof as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act.” 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner basically relied upon Section 7(2) and contended that it is clear from the said provision that it is not only every package of cigarettes but the individual cigarettes shall also contain the specified warning that cigarette smoking is injurious to health. Learned counsel has also referred to Sections 8 to 10 of Act 2003. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner basically relied upon Section 7(2) and contended that it is clear from the said provision that it is not only every package of cigarettes but the individual cigarettes shall also contain the specified warning that cigarette smoking is injurious to health. Learned counsel has also referred to Sections 8 to 10 of Act 2003. 20. The prime contention advanced by the petitioner as is discussed above is absolutely relying upon Section 7 (2), by interpreting that the provision dealing with packages of cigarettes or any other tobacco product sold, supplied or distributed, includes not only the package of cigarettes but an individual cigarette also. 21. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. C.M. Mohammed Iquabal and the learned State Attorney Sri. N. Manoj Kumar. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner addressed arguments on the basis of the deliberations made above. Learned State Attorney has contented that the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon Section 7(2) of Act 2003 cannot be sustained since what is intended under sub-section (2) of Section 7 is that the statutory warning shall contain only in every package of cigarette or any other tobacco products, however any other tobacco product does not take in loose cigarettes as is primarily contended by the counsel for the petitioner. To put the submission of the learned State Attorney otherwise, the phraseology “package of cigarettes”, and “other tobacco products” employed in the said provision is to cater different concepts and satisfy another requirement of the Act 2003 and therefore the same cannot be read together to gather a meaning of an individual or loose cigarette. It was also contended that sub-section (2) of Section 7 deals with packages of cigarettes as a separate class and other tobacco products as a separate class. Therefore, what is intended by the statute is a statutory warning specified as per the provisions of the Act in the package of cigarettes and it was never intended that the statutory warning should be engrossed in the individual cigarettes. 23. Learned State Attorney has invited our attention to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Gramin Mahila Vikas Parishad vs. State of U.P. and Others in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 45433 of 2012 dated 08.07.2013 to contend that even though such a contention was raised it was negatived. 23. Learned State Attorney has invited our attention to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Gramin Mahila Vikas Parishad vs. State of U.P. and Others in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 45433 of 2012 dated 08.07.2013 to contend that even though such a contention was raised it was negatived. Learned State Attorney has also invited our attention to the judgment rendered by the Uttarakhand High Court in Dharmendra Kansal vs. Union of India and Others, 2015 KHC 1140 and invited or attention specifically to paragraph 19 and contended that the findings rendered therein is not in terms of Section 7 of Act 2003. 24. We have considered the rival submissions made across the Bar and evaluated the pleadings put forth by the petitioner. 25. Section 7 of the Act according to us is very clear in regard to the restrictions on trade and commerce, production, supply and distribution of cigarettes and other tobacco products. In our view, the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon sub-section (2) of Section 7 that any other tobacco products contained in the said provision includes sale of loose cigarettes or a single cigarette cannot be sustained for the reason that the first limb of the said provision deals with package of cigarettes and the second limb of the said provision deals with other tobacco products other than cigarettes. Therefore the attempt made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to classify individual cigarettes from the package of cigarettes relying upon sub-section (2) of Section 7 is not a correct interpretation of law since a clear meaning is discernible from sub-section (2) of Section 7 that the package of cigarettes is distinct and different from other tobacco products, which can only be meant and understood as other tobacco products other than package of cigarettes. We do not think that such an interpretation made by learned counsel for the petitioner establishes that each and every cigarette should bear the warning in contemplation of the provisions of the Act 2003. 26. Further it is important and relevant to note from Section 8 of Act 2003 that it is clearly specified the manner in which the warning on a package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products shall be made. 26. Further it is important and relevant to note from Section 8 of Act 2003 that it is clearly specified the manner in which the warning on a package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products shall be made. The provisions of Section 8 also makes it clear that there is a clear segregation made under the provisions of Act recognizing the package of cigarettes as a separate product and other tobacco products as different products, other than the package of cigarettes. If there was any such intention to incorporate warnings in loose cigarettes, it would have been clearly said by employing apt and appropriate words in the provision, by the Parliament. 27. In fact the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Gramin Mahila Vikas Parishad (supra) has specifically addressed the issue and it was held that as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules, requirement of publishing the warning is only over the package not on the loose cigarettes. In that context reference was made to the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labeling) Rules, 2008, (hereinafter called Rules 2008) which not only defines package and principal display area in Rule 2(b) and 2(c) but also provides in Rule 3(a) that every package of cigarette or any other tobacco product shall contain the health warning. 28. Therefore taking into account the facts and circumstances and the law involved we have no hesitation to hold that the Act and the Rules does not intend the incorporation of warning in loose and individual cigarettes. Be that as it may, according to us, the attempt of the petitioner is to persuade this Court to legislate on the point by adding the phraseology “every cigarette'' in section 7(2) of Act 2003 and issue a direction to the Government to incorporate the statutory warning in individual cigarettes. It is well settled in law that the courts cannot legislate law, which is the absolute domain of the parliament and State legislatures, and the Executive, and when called upon this Court to interpret Section 7(2) in a specific manner, collaterally the petitioner seeking a relief of directing the Government to make necessary legislation or the Court to make necessary legislation to satisfy the interpretation given by the petitioner to Section 7 (2) of Act 2003. 29. 29. So far as the Division Bench judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court in Dharmendra Kansal (supra), we are of the considered opinion that interpretation was given to sub-section (2) of Section 7 by incorporating the words “every of cigarette.” In our view the Honourable Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court had arrived at the finding that each and every cigarette should contain the warning, by employing phraseology into the existing provision of Section 7(2) of Act 2003, which we are unable to agree with and therefore we respectfully disagree with the said judgment, especially in view of the decision taken by us that the legislation is a matter to be looked into by the Legislature and the Executive and not by the Court. 30. Needless to say we do not think the petitioner has not made out any case justifying our interference exercising the power of judicial review conferred under Article 226 of the constitution of India, there being no arbitrariness, illegality, or other legal infirmities on the part of the statutory authorities in permitting the manufacturers and sellers of cigarettes without the statutory warning in individual cigarettes. 31. Upshot of the above discussion is that writ petition fails. Accordingly it is dismissed.