Indore (Madhya Pradesh): The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the State government’s decision to deny the 2023 Vikram Award (Adventure Sports Category) to mountaineer Madhusudan Patidar, ruling that he was ineligible because his Mount Everest summit in 2017 fell outside the mandatory five-year achievement window prescribed under the award rules.
Justice Pranay Verma delivered the judgment on Monday, dismissing Patidar’s writ petition in which he had challenged the selection of another mountaineer, Bhawna Dehariya, for the prestigious award and sought its conferment on himself.
Patidar argued that he was the senior-most climber and had scaled Everest earlier than the selected candidate, which, according to him, entitled him to priority under the Madhya Pradesh Award Rules, 2021. He also claimed that the State had improperly failed to issue notifications inviting applications for the 2022 award cycle, thereby preventing him from applying that year.
However, the State government informed the court that the award criteria clearly required achievements to fall within the previous five years. Since Patidar climbed Everest in May 2017, his eligibility window expired in May 2022, making him ineligible for the 2023 award. The State also produced records showing that notices had been issued in earlier years and that adequate publicity was given for applications.
The court agreed with the State’s reasoning, holding that Patidar’s 2017 achievement was beyond the five-year limit. It also noted that in his 2023 application, he had incorrectly claimed to have climbed Everest in 2019— a statement the court described as “misinformation,” as no such proof was furnished and even his own pleadings confirmed the 2017 summit.
Justice Verma further rejected the argument regarding the absence of notifications, observing that the rules did not mandate issuance of a government notification and that the State had, in any case, adequately publicised the application process through press releases and instructions to district sports officers.
Finding no illegality in the selection process or the decision to award the honour to respondent No. 3, the court ruled that the petitioner’s challenge was “devoid of merit” and dismissed the petition.
