IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.356 of 2011 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 753 of 2011 ====================================================== The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Appellant/s Versus Sunila Devi & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dhirendra K.Jha(Ac-Sc9) For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== 2 11-07-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the order under appeal. The writ Court rightly felt dissatisfied with the manner in which a query made by Deputy Development Commissioner, Madhepura was replied by the Panchayati Raj Department. If the statutory provision was self- evident and needed no clarification, then another line indicating whether no confidence motion was maintainable or not should also have been included in the reply. In that sense, the State respondents by their own action forced the writ petitioner to come to this Court. If they did not intend to generate litigation, in the facts of the case they should have given a suitable reply so as to avoid unnecessary litigation at the instance of any of the parties concerned. We clarify that the concerned Department or the DDC who made the query may not be having any intention of creating litigation but that actually happened. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Mahesh Kumar Choudhary/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)