2025:HHC:9236 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.690 of 2024 Date of Decision: 04.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Pradeep Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Chauhan & Ms. Aanchal Singh, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) While placing on record communication dated 04.04.2025, issued under the signatures of Director, Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, stands complied with. 2. Having perused aforesaid communication, which is taken on record, this Court finds that respondents, after having considered the representation filed by the petitioner in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated, has rejected the same. Since there was only direction to consider the representation and respondents have already 2 considered the representation, nothing much has left to adjudicate in the instant proceedings. 3. Though Mr. Vinod Chauhan, learned counsel representing the petitioner, attempted to argue that consideration order has not been passed in conformity with the mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, but this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Chauhan, for the reason that instant proceedings are only meant for compliance. Correctness of the order passed in purported compliance can only be examined in appropriate proceedings, if any, filed by the petitioner. 4. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, laying therein challenge to the order passed in purported compliance of the judgment, alleged to have been violated. April 04, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge