- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6575 WP No. 3238 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO.3238 OF 2026 (MV) BETWEEN: THE HEAD MASTER KMES ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, KUKKUNDURU, KARKALA UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 117. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGESHA M.E.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, UDUPI 574 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6575 WP No. 3238 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Sri.Nagesha M.E., counsel for the petitioner and High Court Government Pleader for respondents appeared in person. 2. The captioned writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs: (a) Call for records. (b) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent, Secretary, RTA Udupi dated 17.01.2026 in No.RTO/UDP/School Bus/2025-26 to the vehicle No.KA-20/B-5037 as per Annexure-B. (c) For a direction to the second respondent Secretary RTA, Udupi to renew the Fitness Certificate of vehicle No.KA-20/B-5037 and (d) For any order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to pass in the interest of justice. 3. Counsel for the respective parties would fairly submit that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is answered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in SMT.SHARADAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P.No.21991/2019 and connected matters, disposed of on 20.08.2019, and they would submit that the decision therein would squarely apply to the present case. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6575 WP No. 3238 of 2026 Counsel therefore, submits that an appropriate order may be passed. 4. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with utmost care. 5. In SHARADAMMA’s case cited supra, it is held that State is not empowered to issue Circular and impose condition that 15 years old vehicles are not entitled for renewal of permit as well as fitness. 6. Following the decision cited supra, the present Writ Petition is allowed. The endorsement dated:17.01.2026 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-B is quashed. The second respondent is directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner for renewal of fitness certificate within four weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is allowed. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6