Though in the application submitted by the petitioner for conferral of award he had stated that he has mounted Mount Everest in 2019, 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
-Justice Pranay Verma in judgment
High Court, Madhya Pradesh’s Indore bench dismissed a petition on Monday whereby state government’s decision to confer Vikram Award to mountaineer Bhawna Dehriya was challenged by a mountaineer who claimed Dehriya was conferred the award by the government ignoring his eligibility for the award.
The petition was filed by Madhusudan Patidar, a resident of Rau, Indore with respondents being the state government, Sports and Youth Welfare Department and also Bhawna Dehriya.
Anunay Shrivastava was the counsel for the respondent no. 3 Bhawna Dehriya while Shrey Saxena, deputy advocate general represented the respondents nos. 1 and 2- state government and Sports and Youth Welfare Department. Ankur Tiwari and Vishwajeet Ahirwar were the counsel for the petitioner.
The bench of Justice Pranay Verma found no merit in the petitioner’s claim that the respondents- state government and Sports and Youth Welfare Department didn’t notify properly to seek applications for the award disabling him from submitting his application and that his claim to the award stood on firm ground given his seniority in comparison to that of Bhawna Dehriya.
The single bench in its judgment pronounced on Monday said, “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.”
The court further said, “Though in the application submitted by the petitioner for conferral of award he had stated that he has mounted Mount Everest in 2019, 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.”
Justice Verma said Though it had 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, respondents 1 and 2 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/
He said, “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 counsel 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.”
Justice Verma observed in his judgement ‘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’.
The court noted that the petitioner has himself filed the communication dated 23-05-2023 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, the court said, 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”, observed the court.
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. 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, stated Justice Verma in his judgement.
In such circumstances, said the court, 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.
Thus, Justice Verma concluded, 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 (Bhawna Dehriya). The petition is consequently found to be devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed.
