IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2141 of 1999 M/S AJANTA CONSTRUCTION COMPANNY through its partner Shri Ram Choubey son of late Barawan Choubey, resident of F-175, Peoples Co- operative Colony, Kankarbagh, Police Station- Kankarbagh, District- Patna. .. Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner, Commercial, Taxes, Government of Bihar, Office at New Secretariat, Bailey Road Patna.- 1 namely A. K. Basu. 3. The Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administration) Patna Division, Patna namely Sri V. N. Das. 4. A. K. Meghotia, Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes South Circle, Patna. 5. Sri Indu Bhushan Chrgave, Executive Engineer, N. H. West Office at Rajbanshi, Nagar, Patna. 6. Shri Braj Mohan Sinha, Executive Engineer, N. H. Biharsharif. 7. Shri Ram Dhyan Ram, N. H. West Office at Rajbanshi Nagar, Patna. … Respondents ----------- 2. 30.03.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer in this application is for initiating a proceeding of contempt for violation of operative portion of the order passed on 14.10.1996 in MJC No.691 of 1996 which arises out of CWJC No. 6380 of 1997 and 6381 of 1997 (disposed of on 7.9.95). In the order of this court dated 14.10.1996 it was held as follows:- “ The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Bihar) is present in court and also the Executive Engineer, respondent no. 10. We do not appreciate the delay in making the refund payment by the Department 2 and we have asked the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, to take strong action in all cases where the departmental authorities hesitate in making refunds which are lawfully due. The delay in making the refunds has led to large scale of corruption in the Department and the assessee is not sure that the amount deposited by him will be refunded if he ultimately succeeds in the litigation pending before this Court. The Department must make its best efforts to remove this impression from the mind of the assessee. It is stated that amount has been paid in full. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that a sum of Rs.1,43,000/- and odd has yet to be refunded which was deposited with respondent no. 10 and a sum of Rs.19,000/- with respondent no. 14. He further claims that interest has not been paid. In the circumstances, this application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to see it that the balance amount, if any, as claimed by the petitioner is refunded within three weeks from today. On the amount already refunded and to be refunded if any interest is payable under the law the same shall also be paid to the petitioners. Notice is discharged and the proceeding is dropped..” 3 Counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite aforementioned direction the balance amount and also interest on refunded amount has not been paid. In the opinion of this court, there was no such direction which was capable of being violated. This court had merely expressed its view that if there was any balance payment admissible to the petitioner or if in terms of any law interest was payable the same have to be paid to the petitioner. Such order in fact is not capable of being violated and as such this competent proceeding arising out an earlier contempt proceeding is wholly misconceived and must be dismissed. Kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)