Sanjay Kumar and others vs. Rakesh Kanwar and another CMP No.5524 of 2025 in COPC No.930 of 2024 03.04.2025 Present Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. By way of instant application, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicants for revival of COPC No.930 of 2024 on account of the fact that despite there being specific direction contained in judgment dated 06.01.2025, needful has not been done by the respondents. Before notices could be issued in the instant application, learned Additional Advocate General has made available copy of office order dated 18.03.2025, to state that representation of the petitioners in terms of the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated was duly considered and rejected. Learned Additional Advocate General states that since there is only direction to consider the representation filed by the petitioners and respondents having taken note of the judgment pressed into service by the petitioners, has already rejected the representation, no action of the respondents can be said to be contemptuous. Having perused copy of aforesaid order dated 18.03.2025, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned Additional Advocate General that nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings. Though, learned counsel representing the petitioners attempted to argue that consideration order is not in conformity with the judgment alleged to have been violated, however only direction in the judgment was to consider the case of the petitioner, which has been considered. Further correctness of order passed in purported compliance of judgment in question cannot be gone into in contempt proceedings, same being limited to compliance of an order passed by the Court. Consequently, in view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present application and accordingly same is disposed of. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners 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. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge April 03,2025 (shankar)