JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral).:- As per the averments made in this petition, this Court vide order dated 12.8.2002 passed in CWP No.9585 of 2001, directed the Registrar, Board of Ayurveda and Unani system of Medicines, Punjab to complete the process of updating the State Register of Medical Practitioners of Ayurveda and Unani System of the State of Punjab within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the aforesaid order. However, the aforesaid time was extended upto 31.10.2003 vide order dated 25.7.2003 passed by this Court in Review Application No.289 of 2002 in CWP No.9585 of 2001. 2. The grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that the respondents have not complied with the aforesaid directions passed by this Court and the net effect of non-compliance of the aforesaid directions is that for the last more than one decade, no elections had taken place in the State of Punjab to the statutory bodies and it is only respondent No.5 who has been benefitted by the aforesaid act of non-compliance. 3. Show cause notice was issued to respondent No.4 and 5 only. 4. In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, separate replies have been filed on behalf of the aforesaid respondents. 5. Respondent No.5 in his affidavit has stated that he has no objection if the fresh elections are held by the Department of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy Unani, Sidha and Homeopathy (AYUSH) and Central Council of Indian Medicines (CCIM). He has further stated that he has been arrayed as a respondent wrongly as he was not a party in the main civil writ petition and no direction was issued by this Court to him. It has been further stated by the aforesaid respondent that he has nothing to do with the election process and the same is to be got conducted by the Department of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy Unani, Sidha and Homeopathy, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi with the help of President and Executive Member of Central Council of Indian Medicines. 6. Mr. Amar Vivek, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners states that the petitioners are not claiming any relief against the aforesaid respondent and therefore, his name may be deleted from the array of parties. Ordered accordingly. 7. 6. Mr. Amar Vivek, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners states that the petitioners are not claiming any relief against the aforesaid respondent and therefore, his name may be deleted from the array of parties. Ordered accordingly. 7. Respondent No.4 in his reply has submitted that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands, as in pursuance of the directions dated 12.8.2002 and 25.7.2003 passed by this Court, the State register of Medical Practitioners was updated by the then Registrar, Board of Ayurvedic & Unani Systems, Punjab, Chandigarh and copies of the amended register were submitted to the Secretary to Government, Punjab Research and Medical Education Punjab, Chandigarh, vide letter dated 17.10.2003 (Annexure R-4/2). It has been submitted in the reply that the process of updating the register maintained by the Board is an ongoing process and is being updated from time to time because on receipt of information regarding the death of any practitioner, the name of such practitioner is deleted from the Register and on acquiring the requisite notification, the name of the candidate is included in the Register. It has been further submitted in the reply that even the Government of India vide notification dated 8.12.2001 (Annexure R-4/3) appointed the Returning Officer to conduct the elections. However, the elections could not be conducted for want of funds. 8. The aforesaid facts as mentioned in the reply filed by respondent No.4 have not been controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Thus, in view of the fact that the respondents have since updated the Register of Medical Practitioners vide order dated 27.10.2003 (Annexure R-4/2), the directions passed by this Court stand complied with. 9. The grievance raised by the petitioners with regard to non holding of elections for over a period of one decade cannot be gone into by this Court as there was no such direction passed by this Court in CWP No.9585 of 2001. Dismissed. Rule discharged. --------------