Karnataka High Court imposes ₹2k costs on State for for repeated failure to respond to BJP MLA's plea

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday imposed costs of ₹2,000 on the State Finance Department for repeatedly failing to file its response to a petition by a BJP Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) alleging discriminatory allocation of funds under the Chief Minister's Infrastructure Development Programme (CMIDP).

A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice KS Bharath Kumar directed the State to pay the costs to the Advocates Clerks Association and produce the receipt along with its statement of objections.

“There is absolutely no justification on the part of the respondents-State in not filing the objections in spite of repeated time being granted,” the Court observed.

The Court further said that once a PIL is taken cognizance of and the State is directed to file its response, the government's affidavit must be placed on record.

If the government fails to do so, the court will pass orders in favour of the petitioner, the bench warned.

“Once a Court takes cognizance and asks you to file a reply, your affidavit must be on record. Otherwise, we will start allowing these PILs. Then you will know,” the bench remarked.

The plea was filed by BJP MLA from Jamkhandi, Jagadeesh Shivayya Gudagunti, who has alleged that constituencies represented by ruling party MLAs received higher allocations than those represented by opposition legislators.

According to the petition, under the ₹8,000 crore CMIDP announced in the 2025–26 State Budget, opposition constituencies were allocated ₹25 crore each, while constituencies represented by ruling party MLAs were allocated ₹50 crore each.

When the matter came up for consideration on Tuesday, the bench noted that by an order dated October 29, 2025, it had directed the State to file a counter affidavit/ statement of objections.

Despite the matter being listed on several occasions thereafter, the counter affidavit was not filed.

The Court noted that a final opportunity had been granted on February 17 this year for the respondents to seek instructions and file their statement of objections.

“Even though the matter came up on four occasions thereafter, no objections are on record,” the bench noted.

The government advocate sought two weeks' time to file a counter affidavit.

The bench, however, questioned why the State had failed to comply despite a specific direction to file its response.

“When there is a direction from this Court to file an affidavit, why is it not being filed?” the bench asked.

Consequently, the Court imposed ₹2,000 costs for the repeated failure to comply with its directions.

It also granted the State two weeks as a final opportunity to place its objections on record.

The bench also warned that where parties avail themselves of more than four opportunities without filing objections, costs would be imposed and the amount could be recovered from the person responsible for the delay.

“In cases where more than four opportunities are taken and no objection is filed, we are going to do this. It should be realised from the person responsible for the non-filing,” the bench said.

Advocate Anish Jose Antony appeared for the petitioner.