IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2933 of 2008 ***** M/s Magadh Manisha Construction Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having Registered office at L.I.G.-9/299, Hanuman Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna-20 through its Director Sri Rabindra Prasad Singh son of Bhola Singh, resident of L.I.G.-9/299, Hanuman Nagar, Kankarbagh, P.S.- Kankarbagh, Distrct-Patna. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Road Construction Department, namely Sri Raj Kumar Singh. 2. Sri Kishore Ranjan Sinha, the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Sri District Education Officer Narayan Pd., the Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, South Bihar, Patna. 4. Sri Dilip Kumar, the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Biharsharif, Nalanda. 5. Sri Manoranjan Kumar, the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Araria. 6. Sri Surendra Prasad, the Executive Engineer, R.W.D., Sheikhpura. 7. Sri Nanipal Das, the Executive Engineer, M.I.Division, Patna. 8. Sri Bhola Ram, the Executive Engineer, Building Construction Division, Araria. 9. Sri Sudarshan Ram, the Executive Engineer,, R.E.O., Hilsa, District-Nalanda. 10. Sri Surendra Prasad, the Executive Engineer, R.E.O., Sheikhpura. 11. Sri Birja Prasad, the Executive Engineer, R.E.O., Araria. 12. Sri Umesh Prasad Singh, the Executive Engineer, R.W.D., Nalanda. 13. Sri Ashok Kumar, the Executive Engineer, R.E.O., Patna. 14. Sri Chitku Ram, the Executive Engineer,, M.I.Division, Nalanda. …. …. Contemnors/Opposite parties ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Dinesh Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. P.K.Verma, Additional Advocate General-XI Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sharan, Junior Counsel to Additional Advocate General-XI ----------- P R E S E N T - 2 - Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 27th November, 2008. After having heard counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that no cognizance of this contempt application needs to be taken. The applicant may make a representation to the concerned authorities, if there has been any error by the concerned authority in the matter of deduction of tax at source. Needless to say, the concerned authority has to act in accord with the interim order dated 18th August, 2008. 2. With the aforesaid observation, contempt application (M.J.C.) strands disposed of. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-