Sanjeev Kumar and Ors. v. RAkesh Kanwar and Ors. CMP No. 2912 of 2025 in COPC No. 733 of 2024 02.5.2025 Present: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate, for the applicants/petitioners. Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for non- applicants/respondents. By way of instant application, prayer has been made by the applicants for revival of COPC No. 733 of 2024, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 27.11.2024, on the basis of statement made by learned Additional Advocate General that needful in terms of judgment dated 18.7.2024 passed in CWP No. 6897 of 2024, titled Sanjeev Kumar and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., shall be done expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. Since nothing came to be done at the behest of the non- applicants/respondents within the stipulated time, he is compelled to approach this Court by way of instant application. Before notices in the application could be issued, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, placed on record communication dated 1.3.2025, enclosing therewith copy of office order dated 6.1.2025, to demonstrate that in terms of mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, representation of the petitioner was considered, but since he was not found entitled to the reliefs as prayed for, same was rejected. Having perused aforesaid communication as well as copy of office order, this Court finds no action of the respondents to be contumacious and as such, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant application. Though at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that so called compliance is not in conformity with the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, but once it is not in dispute that correctness of order passed in compliance of order/judgment alleged to have been violated cannot be looked into in the instant proceedings, which are only meant for compliance, there appears to be no justification to keep the present petition alive and accordingly same is disposed of, reserving the liberty to the applicant/petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate court of law qua surviving grievance, if any. May 2, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), manjit Judge