1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the notification No. S.O.-2941 (E), dated 18.11.2009, Annexure P-3, issued under Section 77 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, "NDPS Act") read with Clause (viia) and (xxiiia) of Section 2 of the NDPS Act on the ground that the provisions and procedure prescribed under Section 77 of the NDPS Act has not been complied with and, therefore, prayer is for quashing the same.

2. Briefly, the facts are that petitioner No. 1 is confined in jail in case FIR No. 162 dated 17.08.2012 registered under Sections 21 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran. Recovery of 270 grams of heroin was effected from him.

3. It has been submitted that sample of heroin was sent to the Chemical Examiner for its report, when it was found to contained diacetylmorphine content as 1% and, therefore, the quantity of heroin recovered from the said petitioner would come to 2.6 grams of heroin, which would fall within the definition of small quantity as provided under Section 2 Clause (xxiiia) of the NDPS Act, which would entitle him to bail being bailable offence, as the sentence thereof is not more than one year. Petitioner No. 1, on this basis, preferred a bail application before the Special Judge, which was declined by observing that recovered quantity of heroin falls within the definition of commercial quantity as provided under Section 2 (viia) of the NDPS Act, which creates a bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for grant of bail.

4. Counsel for the petitioners has made a submission before us that the notification No. SO-1055 (E), dated 19.10.2001 has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in E. Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer Narcotic Control Bureau, (2008) 5 SCC 161, according to which, the offending substance which contained diacetylmorphine would amount to the actual contents of the narcotic drug by weight, which is relevant for the purpose of determining whether it would contain small quantity or commercial quantity. To nullify the effect of said judgement, notification dated 18.11.2009, Annexure P-3, has been issued by the Central Government, which provides that the entire mixture or any solution or any one or more narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances of that particular drug in dosage form or insomers, esters, ethers and salts of these drugs, including salts of esters, ethers and isomers, wherever existence of such substance is possible and not just its pure drug content, shall be taken as the quantity as shown in Columns 5 and 6 of the Table relating to respective drugs shown in Column No. 2 of the notification dated 19.10.2001. The said notification, in view of Section 77 of the NDPS Act, after it is made or issued, is required to be laid as soon as may be, before each House of Parliament while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions.

5. He submits that as per the information received by him, under the Right to Information Act, the session of the Parliament, at the time of issuance of the impugned notification dated 18.11.2009, commenced on 19.11.2009, which continued even beyond 18.12.2009 but the said notification was not laid before the houses. As a matter of fact, the notification dated 19.11.2009 was laid on the table of the Parliament on 5.3.2010 and that too when this session had commenced on 22.2.2010 and was upto 7.5.2010. The notification has also been challenged on the ground that the same is violative of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in E. Micheal Raj's case (supra).

6. It is the contention of counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No. 1, because of the impugned notification, which is not in consonance with law and has no force, has been denied bail, treating the quantity of heroin, which has been recovered from petitioner No. 1, as commercial whereas as per the notification dated 19.10.2001, the same would come to