[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhusudan Patidar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through ... on 8 December, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35807
1 WP-31275-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
WRIT PETITION No. 31275 of 2025
MADHUSUDAN PATIDAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY SPORTS AND YOUGH WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ankur Tiwari and Shri Vishwajeet Ahirwar- Advocate for the
petitioner.
Shri Shrey Raj Saxena - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents 1 and 2/State.
Shri Anunay Shrivastava - Advocate for respondent No.3.
ORDER
(Reserved on 18.11.2025)
(Pronounced on 08.12.2025)
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred by the petitioner for quashing the decision of respondents 1 and 2
in selecting respondent No. 3 for the Vikram Award [Adventure Sports
Category], 2023 and for directing them to give the said award to the
petitioner.
2 . As per the petitioner, he is a trained mountaineer and has summited
Mount Everest. He started his expedition to Mount Everest in April, 2017
and successfully completed the same. He was awarded certificate by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35807
2 WP-31275-2025
mountaineering Association of Tibet Autonomous Region of the People's
Republic of China on 21-05-2017 which is the official issuing authority.
3 . To confer awards to sports persons of State of MP for their
excellent achievement in sports field, the Madhya Pradesh Award Rules,
2021 were brought into force on 19-04-2021. As per Rule 3(a) summiting
Mount Everest is an adventure sport. In terms of Rule 4(5) award in the
Adventure Sports Category is to be recommended based on achievement and
seniority. Rule 9(1)(i) states that every year online applications shall be
received from respective sports player by 31st of July. As per Rule 9(2) (iii)
award in the Adventure Sports Category is to be awarded based on priority
i.e. who has mounted earlier. The State Government however neither issued
any notification for Vikram Award [Adventure Sports Category] nor did the
competent committee recommend the name of the petitioner for the year
2022. No public notice inviting applications for the award was issued by the
Government disabling the petitioner from applying for the award. On 23-05-
2023 respondent 1 in 2 issued a notification calling for online applications for
award of Vikram Award inter alia for Adventure Sports Category stating that
the award shall be given based on achievements earned in the last five years
i.e. from 01-04-2018 to 31-03-2023. The petitioner also made an application
for conferral of the award. However the application of the petitioner has been
rejected despite the he having summited Mount Everest in May, 2017 and
instead respondent No.3 has been selected. Thereafter, communications were
made by the petitioner with respondents 1 and 2 in respect of rejection of his
candidature but the same have not solicited any positive response hence this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35807
3 WP-31275-2025
petition has been preferred by him.
4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of
respondents 1 and 2 in selecting respondent No.3 over the petitioner for
Vikram Award [Adventure Sports Category, 2023] is illegal, arbitrary and
discriminatory. They have acted contrary to the object and provisions of the
Rules. As per the criteria, seniority has to be given effect to and the
petitioner was senior hence ought to have been selected. The criteria is
priority i.e. who mounted Mount Everest earlier which has been ignored.
Petitioner summited Mount Everest on 21.05.2017 whereas respondent No.3
summited the same on 22.05.2019. The Rules are bound to be given effect to
as regards priority. The provisions are required to be substantially complied
with even if they are directory. Inaction on part of respondents 1 and 2 in not
issuing any notification in the year 2022 for inviting applications for the
Vikram Award [Adventure Sports Category] for the period 01-04-2017 up to
31-03-2022 is contrary to Rules which cast an obligation upon them to invite
online applications. After conferral of the award in 2021, the petitioner was
the only athlete eligible for being conferred award in the year
2022. Respondents 1 and 2 who are administrative bodies have acted without
any justifiable grounds in the matter. Reliance has been placed on the
decisions of the Apex Court in Ku. Shrilekha Vidyarthi and others vs. State
of UP and others 1991 (1) SCC 212, Captain Sube Singh and others vs. Lt.
Governor of Delhi and others (2004) 6 SCC 440, Mangalam Organics Ltd.
vs. Union of India (2017) 7 SCC 221 and Opto Circuit India Ltd. vs. Axis
Bank and others (2021) 6 SCC 707.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35807
4 WP-31275-2025
5 . Reply has been filed by the respondents and learned counsel for the
respondents have submitted that according to Rule 4.1 (4) of the Award
Rules, 2021 there is a provision to award one Vikram Award in the
Adventure Sports Category. The criteria is that the applicant must have
achieved special achievement by participating in any one adventure activity
on land, air or water (sea) during last five years. The petitioner had climbed
Mount Everest in the year 2017 whose five-year time period ended on 31-05-
2022. For sports award of the year 2021-2022 information was published in
daily newspapers in Hindi and English from the Directorate level and to
invite online applications all the district sports and youth welfare officers
were given directions by the Directorate through letter dated 16-07-2022 and
to do extensive publicity. For the sports award of the year 2022 and 2023
committee was constituted by order of the State Government. The committee
constituted for sports award 2023 submitted its recommendation on 06-12-
2023 and 08-12-2023 to the Director, Sports and Youth Welfare MP
according to which five applicants had submitted applications in Adventure
Sports including the petitioner. However his name was not considered by the
committee as he had climbed Mount Everest in 2017 hence his time period
for 2023 had expired in view of five-year limit. Accordingly the petitioner
was not recommended for the award as per Rule 4.1 (5) of the Rules. The
decision taken by the committee as well as respondents 1 and 2 for not
recommending the name of the petitioner for the award is hence just and
legal hence the petition deserves to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed
on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Punjabi University versus Union
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35807
5 WP-31275-2025
of India and others (2011) SCC online Del 3496 and Swastika Ghosh versus
Table Tennis Federation of India and others 2022 SCC online Del 1817.
6 . I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
record.
7 . Rule 3(a) of the Rules, 2021 provides that adventure sports means
activities based on water (sea), land and air such as mount Everest and the
English Channel and other adventure activities. As per Rule 4 (5) award in
the adventure sports category is to be recommended based on achievement
and seniority. As per Rule 5, for adventure sports category, the requirement
is that the applicant must have achieved special achievement in adventure
activities in last five years by continuous participation with excellent
performance in one of the adventure sports based on land, air and water
(sea). As per Rule 9 (1)(i), every year online applications shall be received
inter alia from the player by 31st July. As per Rule 9 (2) (iii) award in the
adventure sports category is to be made based on priority i.e. who has
mounted earlier.
8 . Admittedly the petitioner has mounted Mount Everest in the year
2017. The period of five years as prescribed under Rule 5 (i) would, for the
purpose of award for the year 2023, commence from 2018. The period when
the petitioner mounted Mount Everest is six years i.e. more than the
prescribed period of five years. The petitioner was hence admittedly, on the
basis of his contention itself, not eligible for being considered for award
under the adventure sports category for the year 2023. Though in the
application submitted by the petitioner for conferral of award he had stated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35807
6 WP-31275-2025
that he has mounted Mount Everest in 2019 but from his pleadings itself it is
evident that the same is a misinformation submitted by him since he had
mounted Mount Everest in the year 2017. No document or proof has been
furnished by the petitioner for the purpose of demonstrating that he had
mounted Mount Everest in 2019 and that is not even his case. The petitioner
was hence ineligible for being considered for award for the year 2023 under
the adventure sports category hence his claim in that regard has rightly been
rejected by respondents 1 & 2.
9. Though it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that no notification was issued by respondents 1 and 2 inviting applications
for conferral of Vikram Awards for the year 2022 but respondents 1 and 2
have categorically stated that the applications were so invited. As per Rule 9
(1) of the Rules which is as regards the general rules for conferring the
awards, every year online applications shall be received from the respective
sports association/player/coaches/eminent sports person by 31st July. There
is no provision therein that any notification has to be issued by the State
Government inviting applications as has been contended by the learned for
the petitioner. In absence of any such provision, the action of respondents 1
and 2 cannot be faulted on the ground that no notification was published by
them inviting applications. The provision is of receiving online applications
which can be from the players directly. No particular procedure has been
provided as to in what manner the applications are to be invited which would
mean that any procedure adopted giving sufficient public information that
applications are invited for conferral of the award would be sufficient.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35807
7 WP-31275-2025
10. The petitioner has himself filed the communication dated 23-05-
2023 [Annexure P/8] of the Joint Director, Sports and Youth Welfare
Department addressed to all the Divisional Officers as regards inviting
applications for conferral of Vikram Awards. Pursuant thereto the petitioner
also submitted his application. He has also filed the proforma of the press
release in that regard. Thus when the process was initiated in the year 2023,
the petitioner came to know of the same and made his application for
conferral of the award meaning thereby that the procedure adopted by
respondents 1 and 2 for inviting applications for awards was justifiable since
the petitioner on the basis of the same was able to participate in the process.
From the documents filed by respondents 1 and 2, it is evident that similar
notices were issued in the year 2021 and 2022 inviting applications for
conferral of the awards. The press release was also published in various
newspapers. The procedure which was adopted in the year 2023 of which the
petitioner availed benefit of was the very same procedure which was adopted
by respondents 1 and 2 in the year 2021 and 2022. Thus it is not open for the
petitioner to contend that the procedure adopted in the year 2022 was not
correct having himself been the beneficiary of the same procedure adopted in
the year 2023.
12. From the documents filed by respondents 1 and 2 it is seen that for
inviting applications for the year 2022 at the directorate level publication was
made in daily Hindi and English newspapers and all district level sports
welfare officers were directed to undertake sufficient campaign within their
area for inviting applications for the award. The extracts of the newspaper
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35807
8 WP-31275-2025
publications have been filed. Thus, it is evident that there was sufficient
compliance by respondents 1 and 2 of the provision of Rule 9 (1) of the
Rules and it is not open for the petitioner to contend that adequate publicity
was not made in the process of conferral of the award for the year 2022. In
such circumstances, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner are of no avail to him since they are on the general principles and
are distinguishable on facts.
13. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any error
having been committed by respondents 1 and 2 in conferring the Vikram
Award in the category of adventure sports in favour of respondent No.3. The
petition is consequently found to be devoid of any merits and is hereby
dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
