Karnataka HC: Issued that payment of a processing fee is not required for the issuance of a Notice to State Government

Karnataka HC: Issued that payment of a processing fee is not required for the issuance of a Notice to State Government

The Karnataka HC issued a circular ruling that payment of a processing fee is not required for the issuance of a Notice to State Government, as the State is already served with advance notice as a matter of course. 

The circular instructs officers and officials working on the judicial side at the Principal Bench in Bengaluru, as well as benches in Dharwad and Kalaburagi, not to charge a fee for issuance of a notice to the respondent – State Government when the State Government is arrayed as a respondent, especially when the copy of the writ petition has already been served on the State Government and when the name of the respondent has already been served on the State Government.

The order made by the High Court on September 2 in WP No.10338/2021 is cited in the circular issued by K.S.Bharath Kumar Registrar (Judicial). While hearing the petition, the court noted that “The issue of issuing a new notice to respondent No 1 is moot because the first respondent is on advance notice. 

It went on to say “State Government is made a party and notice is issued, the register requires the learned counsel on behalf of petitioners to pay for the process. When Rule 4 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 stipulates the issuance of an advance copy and the registry will not number the proceedings until the copy is served on the Advocate General’s office, the issue of paying the processing fee again for issuance of a new notice to the State is eliminated.”

“Before the Hon’ble Chief Justice the Registrar filed and upon obtaining orders from the Chief justice that when a copy of the writ petition has been served already on the State Government and also when the name of the State Government is printed in the cause list shall issue Circular of there being no necessity for paying fresh process particularly,” the court had said.