2023 Vikram Award: MP High Court Rejects Challenge To Selection Of Mountaineer Bhawna Dehariya In Adventure Sports Category

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on Monday (December 8), dismissed a petition filed by mountaineer Madhusudan Patidar alleging 'inaction and discrimination' by the State in selecting awardee for the 2023 Vikram Award (Adventure Sports Category) and specifically challenging selection of mountaineer Bhawna Dehariya.

Justice Pranay Verma held that Patidar was ineligible for consideration under the Madhya Pradesh Award Rules, 2021, as his Mount Everest summit, an essential basis for his claim, fell outside the prescribed five-year window as he had summited on May 21, 2017.

The bench observed;

"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 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".

This petition followed an earlier petition in which Patidar had complained that, despite being a senior who had pioneered Mount Everest prior in time, he and other similarly situated athletes were overlooked by the Department for the award, and the State had nominated Dehariya for it, which is due to be awarded in 2025.

Patidar had argued that despite multiple representations, the State and the Department did not provide any response. It was contended that the inaction on behalf of the State and department was "arbitrary, patently illegal, and motivated by sheer discrimination".

Dismissing his plea, a coordinate bench of the high court had, in its May 22 order, directed the Department to decide Patidar's "pending representation" as per law within four weeks.

Patidar thereafter moved a contempt petition claiming that there was a direction to the State to decide his representation and claimed that the award may be passed in favour of some other person before his representation was decided.

The high court, in its July 23 order had directed the State's counsel to seek instructions and listed the matter for further hearing.

Patidar then moved the present writ petition, arguing that the high court's May 22 order was brought to the notice of the department vide email dated May 26 and through registered notice dated May 25; but despite this his representation had not been decided.

The bench, in its previous order, restrained the State and the Sports and Youth Welfare Department from conferring the Vikram Award till the next date of the hearing.

The bench, in its order, noted that the Rules do not mandate the issuance of a specific government notification. Further, rule 9(1), the only requirement was that online applications be received by July 31 of each year. Per subclause 2, the award is to be awarded based on priority. However, the State Government neither issued any notification nor did the competent committee recommend the name of the petitioner for the year 2022.

"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".

From the documents, the notices were also issued in the years 2021 and 2022 for inviting applications along with a press release, the same procedure that was adopted in the year 2023. In 2023, the petitioner had availed the benefit of the same procedure that was adopted by the State in 2021 and 2022. It held;

"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".

Thus, the bench dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Madhusudan Patidar v State of Madhya Pradesh (WP-31275-2025)

For Petitioner: Advocates Ankur Tiwari, Vishwajeet Ahirwar and Shivansh Dwivedi

For State: Deputy Advocate General Shrey Raj Saxena and Government Advocate Bhuwan Deshmukh

For Respondent no 3: Advocate Anunay Shrivastava

Click here to read/download the Order