Sham Sunder Kalra Vs. Onkar Chand & Anr. CMP No. 25880 of 2024 in COPC No. 646 of 2024 11.08.2025 Present: Mr. Naveen Awasthi, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, for the non-applicant-respondents-State. Since compliance affidavit filed by the respondents clearly reveals that mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have violated, stands complied, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings. Though, while referring to the consideration order passed by this Court, Mr. Naveen Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, attempted to argue that same is not in conformity with the mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, but this Court after having perused aforesaid order, is not in agreement with the Mr. Awasthi, for the reason that correctness of order passed in purported compliance of mandate contained in the judgment cannot be gone into in the instant proceedings, rather same can be laid challenge by way of appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law and these proceedings are only meant to ensure compliance of the mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated. Since there was only direction to consider the case of the petitioner, and respondents, after having considered the representation of the petitioner, rejected the same, no action of the respondents can be said to be contumacious. In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly, the same are closed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropraite Court of law, laying therein challenge to order passed in purported compliance of the judgment, alleged to have been violated. August 11, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge