Sanjiv Khanna, J

1. At the very outset, we begin with the Caveat, which is almost universal whenever constitutional validity of a legislation is challenged, while deciding the question of constitutional validity, we do not pronounce judgment on whether the impugned legislation is desirable and should have been enacted. A legislation may be constitutional, yet it may not be desirable [Denis v. U.S. reported in (1950) 341 U.S. 492.

2. The present Writ Petitions challenge the legality and validity of some of the provisions of the the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) and the amended Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Prevention of Advertisements and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, for short). It may be noted that Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 18761/2005 and 23716/2005 titled Mahesh Bhatt v. Union of India was filed in this Court, while other two Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 7410-11/2006 titled Kasturi and sons v. Union of Indi