IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13432 of 2011 Mithilesh Kumar Mandal, son of Late Naresh Nand Mandal, resident of Village Chhara Modi, P.S. Amdabad, District Katihar. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Katihar, District- Katihar. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Katihar, District- Katihar. 4. The Block Development Officer, Amdabad, District- Katihar. 5. The Block Supply Officer, Manihari cum Amdabad, District Katihar. 6. The Block Programme Officer, (MANREGA), Amdabad, Katihar. . . . . Respondents. ---------------------------------- with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13457 of 2011 Md.Rajjak, son of Md. Habib, resident of Village- Paharpur, P.S. Amdabad, District- Katihar. . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Katihar, District- Katihar. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Katihar, District- Katihar. 4. The Block Development Officer, Amdabad, District- Katihar. 5. The Block Supply Officer, Manihari cum Amdabad, District Katihar. 6. The Block Programme Officer, (MANREGA), Amdabad, Katihar. . . . . Respondents. ---------------------------------- with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13504 of 2011 Onesh Lal Mandal, son of Late Sukal Mandal, resident of Village Lalbathani, P.S. Amdabad, District- Katihar. . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Katihar, District- Katihar. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Katihar, District- Katihar. 4. The Block Development Officer, Amdabad, District- Katihar. 5. The Block Supply Officer, Manihari cum Amdabad, District Katihar. 6. The Block Programme Officer, (MANREGA), Amdabad, Katihar. . . . . Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2/ 23.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners are the P.D.S. dealer under Amdabad 2 Block in the district of Katihar. The petitioners have challenged the general notice dated 11.07.2011, whereby they have been asked to return the value of rice allotted to them at APL rate. 3. The petitioners submit that the notice does not specify the quantity of rice either allotted to them or the quantity which has remained undistributed with them. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the notice is vague as it does not specify either the quantity of rice that was allotted or the quantity of rice that would still remain with the petitioners. As such the impugned notice dated 11.07.2011 is set aside with a direction to the B.D.O., Amdabad to issue fresh notice specifying the quantity of rice that would remain undistributed with the petitioners within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to Deputy Development Commissioner, Katihar. 6. The writ applications are accordingly disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)