Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mudrika Prasad Tiwari vs Union Of India on 28 January, 2026
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7848
1 WP-47604-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 28th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 47604 of 2025
MUDRIKA PRASAD TIWARI
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vikash K.Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - Additional Solicitor General with Ms. Preeti Singh - Advocate for
the respondent No.1.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-
"(i) That This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Chairperson/Commissioner Central Vigilance Commission Delhi (Respondent No.1); to decide the pending statutory review application dated 26.11.2025 filed under Section 8(1)
(h) of C.V.C.Act, 2003 by petitioner by issuing appropriate writ/order/direction in nature of mandamus in the interest of justice.
(ii) To direct the C.V.O. vigilance department N.C.L. H.Q. Singrauli (respondent No.2 to decide the pending email application dated 27.11.2025 and 01.12.2025 as per law within a expedite period of time in the interest of justice).
(iii) Any other relief/direction/order/instructions which this Hon'ble Court deems fit as per fact and circumstances of the case."
Counsel appearing for the petitioner has heavily relied upon Section 8(1)(h) of Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 and submits that there is power of review with the C.V.C. However, the said submissions made by the counsel are being heavily objected by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. He has drawn Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 29-01-2026 18:46:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7848 2 WP-47604-2025 attention of this Court to Section 8 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003. Section 8 does not reflect that there is any power of review. It is the power of superintendence over the vigilance administration of various Ministries and does not amount to power of review of an order passed by the competent authority.
Petitioner's counsel has also relied upon Section 18 which deals with power to call for information. The said section also does not reflect that there is any power to review the order passed by the authorities.
When confronted with the aforesaid proposition, the petitioner's counsel submits that a representation submitted by the petitioner demanding such documents as well as report be directed to be decided within the stipulated time frame.
If the petitioner is not being supplied with the documents then he is having a remedy to apply under the R.T.I. Act. for supply of the documents from the respondents/authorities. Merely directing the respondents for deciding the representation will be a futile exercise. Under these circumstances, no mandamus can be issued.
The petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE AM Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 29-01-2026 18:46:07