JUDGMENT The petitioner is a wholesale dealer of tobacco-free pan masala named 'Vimal and Shikkar Pan Masala'. The petitioner has the requisite statutory licenses to manufacture and sell the product. The product is a mouth freshener free from tobacco. The product is found to be edible for human consumption after undergoing a rigorous testing process. The petitioner proposes to transport the product to Kerala through the Muthanga and Valayar Check Posts. The petitioner apprehends that the respondents may seize the product and take unnecessary action against her as done against similar dealers. The authorities have no authority to seize the product. If the product is seized, it would be unnecessarily detained, which would cause injustice to the petitioner. The petitioner is willing to cooperate with the respondents. Hence, a direction may be issued to the respondents to desist from seizing the product merely on a suspicion that it contains tobacco. 2. Heard: Sri. N.L.Bitto, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Vidya Kuriakose, the learned Government Pleader. 3. The petitioner seeks an anticipatory mandamus to direct the respondents to desist from seizing the petitioner’s product, which she proposes to bring from Karnataka and New Delhi for sale in Kerala. 4. In Praga Tools Corporation v. C. V. Imanual ( AIR 1969 SC 1306 ), the Supreme Court has held that a writ will lie not only for compelling an authority to perform its statutory duty but also for restraining or prohibiting them from doing anything that is not legally permissible. 5. It is also well settled that a petitioner doesn't need to establish that he has suffered an actual injury; apprehension of injury or threat of injury is more than sufficient to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Refer to Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1955 SC 661 )?and Kochuni v. State of Madras ( AIR 1959 SC 725 ). 6. In the light of the above exposition of law, there is no doubt that a statutory authority can be restrained from doing an act not permitted under the law. 7.The production, supply and distribution of cigarettes and tobacco products are regulated by The Cigarettes And Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (‘Act’, in short). 8. 7.The production, supply and distribution of cigarettes and tobacco products are regulated by The Cigarettes And Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (‘Act’, in short). 8. As per Section 3 (p) of the Act, ‘tobacco products’ means the products specified in the Schedule. Serial No.8 under the Schedule is pan masala or any chewing material with tobacco as one of its ingredients (by whatever name called). 9. The petitioner contends that since her product does not contain tobacco, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to her product. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner has not brought the product to the State, and the respondents have not seized or tested it. 11. It is apposite to refer to Section 12 of the Act, which reads as follows: 12. Power of entry and search.– (1) Any police officer, not below the rank of a sub-inspector or any officer of State Food or Drug Administration or any other officer, holding the equivalent rank being not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police, authorise side by the Central Government or by the State Government may, if he has any reason to suspect that any provision of this Act has been, or is being, contravened, enter and search in the manner prescribed, at any reasonable time, any factory, building, business premises or any other place,– (a) where any trade or commerce in cigarettes or any other tobacco products is carried on or cigarettes or any other tobacco products are produced, supplied or distributed; or (b) where any advertisement of the cigarettes or any other tobacco products has been or is being made. (2) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall apply to every search and seizure made under this Act. 12. Section 12 confers powers on the competent officer to enter and search any factory, building, business premises, or other place, if he suspects that any of the provisions of the Act are being contravened. 13. Sections 13 and 14 of the Act confer power on the competent officer to seize and confiscate a product, if they suspect that the provisions of the Act are being contravened. 14. 13. Sections 13 and 14 of the Act confer power on the competent officer to seize and confiscate a product, if they suspect that the provisions of the Act are being contravened. 14. In view of the above provisions in the Act, it is explicit that the respondents have the power to enter, search, seize, and confiscate a product if they suspect any of the provisions of the Act are being violated. 15. In the case at hand, admittedly, the petitioner has not brought her product to the State. Merely because the petitioner states that her product does not contain tobacco, the same cannot be a ground for forbearing the respondents from exercising their statutory powers under the Act. Likewise, just because the respondents have seized and confiscated products of other traders, the same also cannot be a reason to restrain the respondents from exercising their statutory powers, if they have a suspicion regarding the petitioner's product. In any given case, the petitioner is not entitled to a peremptory mandamus to prohibit the respondents from exercising their statutory duties in a hypothetical situation like this. The Act is a self- contained enactment with specific provisions for adjudication of disputes. If the respondents seize the petitioner’s products, she has an alternative remedy under the Act. The writ petition is misconceived, lacks merits, and is consequentially dismissed.