IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.2045 of 2026 Date of Decision: 18.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Kewal Krishan …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar Manget & Mr. Rajendera Gulati, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that since petitioner failed to submit representation in terms of judgment dated 20.03.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1816 of 2024, titled Kewal Krishan versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, needful, in terms of directions contained in aforesaid judgment, could not be done. He states that as and when such representation is filed, same shall be decided expeditiously. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2

2. In view of the above, petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition at this stage with liberty to file fresh representation within a period of one week in terms of judgment dated 20.03.2024 passed in CWP No. 1816 of 2024, which shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 18, 2026 (sunil)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.2045 of 2026 Date of Decision: 18.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Kewal Krishan …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar Manget & Mr. Rajendera Gulati, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that since petitioner failed to submit representation in terms of judgment dated 20.03.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1816 of 2024, titled Kewal Krishan versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, needful, in terms of directions contained in aforesaid judgment, could not be done. He states that as and when such representation is filed, same shall be decided expeditiously. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2

2. In view of the above, petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition at this stage with liberty to file fresh representation within a period of one week in terms of judgment dated 20.03.2024 passed in CWP No. 1816 of 2024, which shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 18, 2026 (sunil)