Judgment R.N. Sahay, J. The petitioner is a land holder. In the year 1973-74 a proceeding under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Lands Act, 1961 (Ceiling Case No. 71/73-74) was commenced against Late Hari Mohan Choudhary, father of the petitioner. Thereafter a draft notification under section 10(2) of the Act, showing total area of 434.85 acres of different categories, which on conversion to Class IV, held to be 450.04 acres, was served upon Hari Mohan Choudhary. He was allotted 46.47 acres of land under section 5 of the Ceiling Act and the rest land was treated to be surplus. Hari Mohan Choudhary filed objection under section 10(3) of the Act. 2. After the death of Hari Mohan Choudhary on 14.6.1982, a fresh draft under section 10(2) of the Act was served upon the petitioner and the petitioner filed objection under section 10(3) of the Act. According to the draft notification served upon the petitioner, total area of 676.94 acres of land of different classification has been shown as belonging to the objector which after being converted into Class-III lands have been held to be 676.04 acres and out of the same, only an area of 30 acres of land of different classification have been allowed to be held by the objector under section 5 of the Act apart from Hari Mohan Choudhary, his heirs mentioned in para-12 of the writ application. 3. It appears that the objection filed by the petitioner was disposed of on hearing the affected persons. The objection was disposed of by order dated 29.1.1988 (Annexure-1). Thereafter draft notification under section 11 (1) of the Act was published in the Bihar District Gazette No. 64/69. The proceeding before the Land Ceiling Authority started in 1973 which concluded in 1989. Suddenly, the petitioner received notice on 13.1.1991 (Annexure-4) of the Additional Collector directing the petitioner to appear. This notice was under section 45B of the Land Ceiling Act which provision empowers the State Government or the Collector of the District at any time call for and examine any record of any proceeding disposed of by the Collector under the Act and the Collector may direct that the case be reopened and disposed of afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The provisions of section 45B are special provisions conferring wide powers on the State Government and the Collector. 4. It has been held by this Court in Harishchandra Singh vs. State of Bihar AIR 1984 Pat 337 : 1984 PLJR 988 that section 45B does not confer any blanket power to the Collector to reopen any concluded ceiling proceeding. The use of expression by the Legislature "examine any record" necessarily implies the application of judicial mind and completely takes away the sting of arbitrariness, while at the same time introducing an element of guidance for the authority to act. 5. The petitioner challenged the notice of reopening the proceeding on the ground that no valid reason was indicated in the notice to reopen the proceeding. 6. In a Full Bench decision of this Court in Praveen Shankar Singh vs. State of Bihar, 1987 PLJR 154 , scope and ambit of section 45B of the Act was examined. Full Bench rejected the arguments that wide arbitrary power has been conferred on the Collector and the State Government to reopen a closed proceeding whenever it or he is inclined to do so. It was observed that it could not be assumed that the Legislature was acting irresponsibly so as to clothe the authorities with unlimited and uncontrolled powers in order to transgress the established jurisprudential principles. Full Bench held "If the materials on the records of a case taken into consideration by the authorities concerned and conclusion is reached which becomes final (on appeal and revision or in absence thereof), its finality has to be respected and the proceeding cannot be reopened for giving a second thought. If, however, any material or matter has been omitted from consideration which may be so substantial as to lead to a different conclusion, the power under the section may be exercised." 7. In the present case notice issued to the petitioner (Annexure-4) is silent as to on what ground the Collector decided to reopen the proceeding. The order of the Collector (Annexure-5) only shows that the proceeding was reopened on the recommendation of the Additional Collector in-charge Ceiling, Katihar. The order (Annexure-5) also shows that the Additional Collector had taken the opinion of the Government Pleader. Notice to the petitioner is absolutely vague and does not contain the ground for reopening the concluded proceeding. The order of the Collector (Annexure-5) only shows that the proceeding was reopened on the recommendation of the Additional Collector in-charge Ceiling, Katihar. The order (Annexure-5) also shows that the Additional Collector had taken the opinion of the Government Pleader. Notice to the petitioner is absolutely vague and does not contain the ground for reopening the concluded proceeding. Impugned notice is arbitrary and contrary to the decision of the Full Bench referred to above. 8. In the result, this writ application is accordingly allowed and the impugned notice (Annexure-4) and the order (Annexure-5) are hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.