ORDER The petitioner has challenged the impugned notice issued by the Recovery Officer, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Ranchi dated 14th June, 2005/16th June, 2005, whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs.23,992/ in Employees' State Insurance Fund Account No.I. It has been mentioned in the said notice that if the petitioner fails to deposit the amount, warrant of arrest shall be issued against its proprietor. 2. According to the petitioner, its establishment is covered under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act. The petitionerrestaurant was registered under Section 2(12) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 with effect from 21st December, 2000 and it has been allotted Employees' Code No.607176112. It has been further stated that the petitioner is a small restaurant with maximum strength of employees, below ten. After registration, the petitioner deposited the entire due contribution payable by it for the period December, 2000 to March, 2005. In spite of the compliance of the said provision and deposit of the amount, the respondents issued impugned notice dated 14th June, 2005/16th June, 2005, asking the petitioner to deposit Rs.23,992/, as balance amount, with threatening that failure thereof shall entail the action and issuance of warrant of arrest. 3. The petitioner has challenged the said notice on the ground that the same is vague, unspecific and without any description on the basis of which the said amount has been worked out. 4. It has been submitted that the notice does not show the amount already deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner is unable to understand as to how this amount has been said to be due when the entire amount has already been deposited by the petitioner. 5. Though the respondents have appeared and filed counter affidavit, nobody appeared on their behalf when the writ petition is taken up for hearing. 6. In Para 24 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have admitted about the payment made by the petitioner, but it has been stated that the petitioner is also liable to pay interest and damages as per the rules and regulations of Employees' State Insurance Act. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the facts and materials on record and also the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. 8. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the facts and materials on record and also the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. 8. On perusal of the impugned notice, I find that in the notice it has been mentioned that the amount is balance and payable by the petitioner. The notice is not supported by any description as to how the total amount has been calculated as balance amount. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have accepted that the petitioner has deposited the amount of contribution up to March, 2005. It has been stated that the petitioner is also liable to pay interest and damages. Nothing has been brought on record by the respondents to show that how the interest and damages have been calculated. It is also not clear that the amount demanded by the respondents is the amount of interest and damages. The notice is completely silent about the nature of the demand and the basis of calculation of the amount. The grievance of the petitioner, thus, appears to be genuine. If the petitioner has been said to be liable to pay the alleged amount, accurate information must be furnished to it as to how the amount has been calculated and the due is under which head. The petitioner cannot be coerced to deposit the amount without informing him the said details. 9. The impugned notice, as contained in Annexure6, being vague and arbitrary, is vitiated in law and the same is hereby quashed. 10. It is made clear that the respondents are not prevented from taking appropriate step in accordance with law, if so required, after following due procedure of law and giving the petitioner due notice. 11. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 12. Interim order dated 29th June, 2005 stands vacated.