Allowed¶44

The Head Master, v. the Commissoner for Transport

Karnataka HC21 Apr 2026WP/12405/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

School children transport; permit renewal declined by RTA Udupi endorsement dated 10.03.2026; endorsement quashed; Rule 6(2) Karnataka Motor Vehicles (Conditions for Vehicles Engaged in Transport of School Children) Rules, 2012; Sharadamma W.P.No.21991/2019 DD 20.08.2019; The Head Mistress St. Antony Lower Primary School W.P.No.6991/2023 DD 06.08.2024; Head Master Amrutha Bharathi Vidyalaya Hebri Udupi; reconsideration within four weeks; writ allowed under Articles 226 and 227.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 10.03.2026 issued by respondent No.2 (Annexures-C1 to C5) quashed; respondent No.2 directed to reconsider the petitioner's application for renewal of permit bearing in mind Rule 6(2) of the Rules, 2012 and the Sharadamma decision, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four weeks. ¶44

The Head Master, Vs the Commissoner for Transport — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the endorsement dated 10.03.2026 issued by respondent No.2 declining the petitioner's request pertaining to the subject vehicles should be quashed, and whether the petitioner's application for renewal of permit should be reconsidered bearing in mind Rule 6(2) of the Rules, 2012.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is allowed.

¶44

Key takeaways

The endorsement dated 10.03.2026 issued by respondent No.2 (Annexures-C1 to C5) is quashed.ratio¶45
Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the petitioner's application for renewal of permit, bearing in mind Rule 6(2) of the Rules, 2012 and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in Sharadamma, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four (4) weeks from receipt of the copy of this order.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (MV) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the Head Master, Amrutha Bharathi Vidyalaya, Hebri, Udupi District, challenging the endorsement dated 10.03.2026 (No.RTO/UDP/SCHOOL BUS/2025-26) of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Udupi, declining the petitioner's request concerning vehicles Nos. KA-20/B8016, KA-20/B-8018, KA-20/B-8020, KA-20/B-5132 and KA-20/B-5033 (Annexures-C1 to C5). Counsel submitted the issue is squarely covered by Sharadamma v. State of Karnataka (W.P.No.21991/2019, DD 20.08.2019) and The Head Mistress St. Antony Lower Primary School v. State of Karnataka (W.P.No.6991/2023, DD 06.08.2024), in the latter of which the matter was remitted for reconsideration because Rule 6(2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles (Conditions for Vehicles Engaged in Transport of School Children) Rules, 2012 was not properly considered. Acting on that settled proposition, this Court allowed the petition, quashed the endorsement, and directed respondent No.2 to reconsider the permit-renewal application bearing in mind Rule 6(2) of the Rules, 2012 and the Co-ordinate Bench decision in Sharadamma, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four weeks.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:21569 WP No. 12405 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.12405 OF 2026 (MV)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE HEAD MASTER, AMRUTHA BHARATHI VIDYALAYA, MITHILANAGAR, HEBRI, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 112.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI NAGESHA M.E., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE COMMISSONER FOR TRANSPORT, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,

¶15

BENGALURU-560027.

¶16

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,

¶18

UDUPI-574 101.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS; QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT, SECRETARY, RTA UDUPI DATED 10.03.2026 IN NO.RTO/UDP/SCHOOL BUS/2025-26 TO THE VEHICLE NOS.KA-20/B8016, KA-20/B-8018, KA-20/B-8020, KA-20/B-5132 & KA-20/B-5033 AS PER ANNEXURES-C1 TO C5 AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:21569 WP No. 12405 of 2026

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondents.

¶29

The petitioner in this petition has called in question the impugned endorsement dated 10.03.2026 issued by respondent No.2, wherein the request of the petitioner pertaining to the subject vehicles has been declined.

¶30

Learned counsel on both sides submit that the

¶31

issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Sharadamma Vs.

¶32

The State of Karnataka and Others¹ (Sharadamma) .

¶33

It is further submitted that relying upon the said decision, this Court in The Head Mistress St.

¶34

Antony Lower Primary School Vs. The State of

¶35

1 W.P.No.21991/2019 and connected matter D.D.20.08.2019

¶36

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:21569 WP No. 12405 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Karnataka and Others² (The Head Mistress St. Antony

¶39

Lower Primary School) has remitted the matter to the respondent-authority for reconsideration of the petitioner’s application on the ground that Rule 6(2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles (Conditions for Vehicles Engaged in Transport of School Children) Rules, 2012 (“Rules, 2012” for short) was not properly considered.

¶40

In view of the settled proposition of law laid

¶41

down in the case of Sharadamma and The Head Mistress St. Antony Lower Primary School , this Court

¶42

pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶45

ii. The endorsement dated 10.03.2026 issued by respondent No.2 (Annexures-C1 to C5) are quashed .

¶46

iii. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s application for renewal of permit,

¶47

2 W.P.No.6991/2023 D.D 06.08.2024

¶48

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21569 WP No. 12405 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

bearing in mind Rule 6(2) of the Rules, 2012 and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sharadamma, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶53

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

The Head Master, v. the Commissoner for Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Head Master, v. the Commissoner for Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Suhas Ramachandra Gowda Vs M/S Classmate Properties Partnership Firm

Sri Iliyaz Pasha Vs Sri Hasain Pasha

Smt Gowramma Vs Smt Jayamma K

Venkatesha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Prathap S Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Byramma Vs the Commissioner