IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.753 of 2011 SUNILA DEVI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2/ 28/01/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is stated to be the elected Chairperson of the District Board, Madhepura. It is his contention that the term of the Board is to expire on 27.6.2011. Therefore, no motion for no confidence could have been convened on 4.1.2011 in view of the expiry of the term within the next six months in terms of Section- 70(4)(iii). The Deputy Development Commissioner sought directions from the Panchayati Raj Department which simply reiterated in one line that the provisions under Section-74(4)(iii) are self evident and need no clarification. The Court is satisfied that the present litigation is generated by the State Respondents. Right or wrong, if the D.D.C. had a doubt in his mind and sought a clarification from the Panchayati Raj Department, the least that was expected was to furnish the clarification in explicit clarificatory terms unlike the present non- speaking, inconclusive direction leaving the query maker in the lurch with regard to the query made by him, - 2 - creating a situation of uncertainty where non-existed. Let the petitioner appear before the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj along with a copy of the present order. Let the Principal Secretary pass appropriate orders within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of such application. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)