[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vivek Singh Chouhan vs Govind Mohan on 16 February, 2026
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2026:MPHC-IND:4198
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 771 of 2025
VIVEK SINGH CHOUHAN
Versus
GOVIND MOHAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Mrigendra Singh (through video conferencing), learned
Senior Advocate with Shri Raghav Raj Singh and Shri Kaushal
Sisodiya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General with
Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Reserved on 08.01.2026)
(Pronounced on 16.02.2026)
1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner alleging non-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2026:MPHC-IND:4198
compliance of order dated 09.12.2024 passed in W.P. No.10038/2024
whereby the respondent No.1 to the petition i.e. the Union of India was
directed to ensure that the petitioner receives the gallantry award within
a month's time.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that in the year 2003 the
petitioner was posted as Incharge SHO Police Station, Ghatigaon,
District Gwalior. On 24.06.2003 upon receiving discreet information
about presence of dacoits in the village Dadakheda he reached there
with force and two dacoits were shot dead. Two twelve bore rifles and
several cartridges were seized. In the encounter the petitioner also
sustained injury. The encounter was followed by a magisterial enquiry
in which clean chit was given to the petitioner. The Superintendent of
Police recommended the higher authorities for grant of out of turn
promotion to the petitioner. Recommendation was also forwarded for
award of President's Police Medal for gallantry to the petitioner. The
petitioner submitted representation to the respondents in that regard but
no action was taken. The petitioner hence preferred W.P.
No.15215/2013 before this Court which was allowed by order dated
02.04.2018 and the respondents/State were directed to forward the case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2026:MPHC-IND:4198
of the petitioner to the concerned authority for grant of President's
Medal for Gallantry Award within a period of 60 days and the
concerned authority was directed to consider the case of the petitioner
in accordance with the Circular. Thereafter the State Government
forwarded the name of the petitioner for grant of the award on
01.04.2019. By order dated 14.10.2019 the Under Secretary (PMA)
Ministry of Home Affairs rejected the claim of the petitioner. The
petitioner hence preferred W.P. No.10038/2024 before this Court which
was allowed by order dated 09.12.2024 and the respondent/Union of
India was directed to ensure that the petitioner receives the Gallantry
Award within a month's time. The said order was affirmed by the
Division Bench of this Court by order dated 09.01.2025 in W.A.
No.3192/2024. Alleging that despite the aforesaid order passed in the
Writ Petition the award has not been conferred upon the petitioner the
present petition has been preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been
clear disobedience of the order passed by this Court by the respondent.
The petitioner has always been contesting the matter for grant of
President's Gallantry Medal to him. Ever since the inception of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2026:MPHC-IND:4198
litigation that has been his sole prayer. This Court also in the earlier
order had considered the case of the petitioner only for grant of
President's Gallantry Medal to him and the orders which had been
passed were also considering the said claim. The respondent is taking
undue advantage of the fact that in the order of which violation has
been alleged it was directed that the petitioner should receive the
gallantry award. However that would not mean that the petitioner can
be given any medal for gallantry. The true import of the order is that the
award which has to be given to the petitioner is President's Gallantry
Medal for which he has been litigating. By trying to create a situation of
ambiguity in the order the respondent is acting mischievously. The
same is wholly illegal and an attempt by the respondent to over reach
the order passed by this Court and to nullify its effect.
5. Reply was earlier filed by the respondent/contemner on
18.03.2025. However a perusal of the said reply shows that the same
was on merits of the case and it had been detailed as to how and in what
manner medals are conferred. The instant are contempt proceedings and
not original proceedings and the only question for consideration is
whether the order passed in the Writ petition has been complied with. It
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2026:MPHC-IND:4198
is not to be seen whether the petitioner is entitled for the award. Thus
this reply filed by the respondent is of no consequence. Moreover, by
order dated 05.05.2025 this Court has already observed that it is not
satisfied with the explanation given by the respondent. The learned
Deputy Solicitor General had submitted that he will ensure compliance
of the order before the next date.
6. Thereafter a compliance report has been filed by the respondent
in which it has been stated that the case of the petitioner has been
examined in accordance with the prescribed guidelines upon which the
Hon'ble President of India has been pleased to approve award of
Gallantry Medal (GM) to the petitioner which has been duly
communicated to the State Government.
7. Thus it is evident that the award which has been approved in
favour of the petitioner is the Gallantry Medal (GM) and not the
President's Gallantry Medal. It is not in dispute between the parties that
both these medals are quite distinct and different. President's Gallantry
Medal is the highest award which can be granted to a personnel such as
the petitioner whereas Gallantry Award is an award which is granted to
numerous persons at the same time. The former award is given to only
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2026:MPHC-IND:4198
one person. Thus President's Gallantry Medal stands on a much higher
pedestal then the Gallantry Award which has been approved in favour
of the petitioner.
8. Though during course of hearing learned counsel for respondent
submitted that the order passed by this Court in the Writ Petition was
for conferring gallantry award to the petitioner in compliance of which
Gallantry Medal (GM) has been approved for him but the same is a
totally unwarranted and a mischievous interpretation of the order passed
by this Court. The prayer made in the Writ Petition was specifically for
conferral of President's Gallantry Award and not for any gallantry
award. The said fact had been noted by this Court in the order itself. In
any case when the entire history of the litigation is perused it is
observed that since the very inception the petitioner had been claiming
President's Gallantry Medal and not any medal for gallantry or a
gallantry award. The direction which had been issued by this Court in
the earlier Writ Petition was in respect of President's Gallantry Medal
alone. It had been understood by the parties at all relevant points of
time that the case of the petitioner is for President's Gallantry Medal
and they had litigated on that basis. Eventually the case of the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2026:MPHC-IND:4198
has been found to be meritorious and direction has been issued in his
favour. The same necessarily has to be construed as a direction for
President's Gallantry Medal and there is no ambiguity in the order when
the same is looked into in the light of the entire proceedings. The case
of the petitioner was solely for President's Gallantry Medal which has
been accepted by this Court and direction issued in his favour. Merely
because in the last line of the order the words "gallantry award" have
been mentioned, it would not give the respondent a right to approve
Gallantry Medal (GM) in favour of the petitioner. In doing so the
respondent has clearly over reached the order passed by this Court and
has acted in an absolutely mischievous and unwarranted manner and in
doing so has clearly violated the order passed by this Court and is hence
in contempt of the lawful authority of this Court.
9. As a result of the aforesaid discussion it is evident that the
respondent has willfully and deliberately disobeyed and disregarded the
order passed by this Court and with full knowledge has declined to
comply the same. There is an apparent effort on his part to over reach
the lawful authority of this Court and in flouting the order. He is hence
prima facie guilty of committing contempt of this Court. However
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2026:MPHC-IND:4198
before proceeding to hold him guilty I deem it appropriate to grant him
one more opportunity to ensure compliance of the order. If the order is
not complied with before the next date of hearing the respondent shall
automatically be deemed to be held in contempt of the order passed by
this Court and further proceedings against him in accordance with law
would be taken.
10. List in week commencing 23.03.2026.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
