ORDER S. Saghir Ahmed, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this petition are that petitioner No. 1 Srimati Shanti Devi and opposite party No. 3 Srimati Zareena Begum jointly hold regular stage carriage permit No. 385 covered by Vehicle No. UST 4624 for Muzaffar Nagar-Bijnore and allied routes. Petitioner No. 1, who is an old lady of more than 60 years of age, is a widow like opposite party No. 3, who is also a widow. Petitioner No. 1 is said to be a highly religious lady with firm belief in Hindu Mythology and since at the fag-end of her life she wanted to visit religious places and to spend money in charity, she needed finance. She, therefore, decided to transfer her half share in the permit in favour of petitioner No. 2. who was a close friend of her sons already engaged in transport business on other routes. Petitioner No. 1 consequently made an application (Annexure- 1) on 15-9-1980 to the Regional Transport Authority (for short, R. T. A.) for permission to transfer her half share in the permit in favour of petitioner No. 2. This application was made under S. 59(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with R. 67 of the Rules made thereunder. This application contained an endorsement of opposite party No. 3 that she had no objection to the proposed transfer of the half share in favour of petitioner No. 2. The application was published in the U.P. Gazette dated 28-3-81 but no objection was filed. An enquiry was also made by the R.T.A. about the genuineness of the application through the District Magistrate. Muzaffar Nagar, who in his report dated 19-7-81 stated that there was no objection to the proposed transfer. The application was considered by the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting on September. 25, 1981. The application was rejected by the R.T.A. by its order dated November, 3/4, 1981. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the U.P. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P. Lucknow (for short. S. T. A. T.) who by its order dated 18-1-83 dismissed the appeal. It is in these circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the U.P. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P. Lucknow (for short. S. T. A. T.) who by its order dated 18-1-83 dismissed the appeal. It is in these circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The order passed by the R.T.A. has been quoted in full in the judgment passed by the S. T. A. T. It was not disputed that the petitioner was an old lady of more than 60 years of age who had half share in the permit and that petitioner No. 2 in whose favour she intended to transfer the permit was the close friend of her sons. There was no objection to the proposed transfer by the co-permit holder, namely, Srimati Zareena Begum (opposite party No. 3). The enquiry, which was made through the District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar, also revealed that the application for the proposed transfer was genuine and that the District Magistrate himself had no objection to the said transfer. In spite of these materials on record, the R.T.A. by a cryptic order refused the permission on the ground that the ground set out for transfer was not a valid ground. The R.T.A. in its order has not given any reason. The Supreme Court in M/s. Ravi Roadways v. Asia Bi, AIR 1970 SC 1241 has held that the exercise of powers under S. 59(1) is quasi-judicial. That being so, it is obvious that the R.T.A. while rejecting or allowing the application for transfer has to give reasons. The R. T. A. was not justified in rejecting the application with a one sentence observation that there was no valid ground for transferring the permit. This order has been upheld by the S.T.A.T. which came to the conclusion that the ground set out by petitioner No. 1 for transfer of permit was not genuine. This conclusion is based on the fact that although it was set out by petitioner No. 1 in the application that she being a widow of 60 years of age was not in a position to manage her business and wanted at the fag-end of her life to visit religious places and to spend money in charity, the affidavit filed in support of this application did not contain the said averments. The S.T.A.T. also was of the view that the affidavit filed by the petitioner No. 2 did not contain all the averments which were made in the application for transfer of the permit in his favour. I am constrained to observe that the approach of the Tribunal has not been proper. Petitioner No. 1 had made an application to the R.T.A. for permission to transfer the permit in favour of petitioner No. 2. This application was made under S. 59(1) of the Act. In the affidavit, which was filed by the petitioner No. 1 she stated that she herself has made the application for transfer. The averments made in the application had not been disputed by anyone although the application was published in the Government gazette. Even the District Magistrate had not filed any objection against the application for transfer. He, on the contrary, had stated in his report that the application was genuine and that there was no objection to the proposed transfer. In the background of these facts it was not proper on the part of the S.T.A.T. to insist that all the averments made in the application should have been reproduced in the affidavit particularly when the application was not required by law to be supported by an affidavit. It is another thing that the authority concerned may require the applicant to support the application by an affidavit. Merely because the petitioner No. 1 had not reproduced all the averments of the application in her affidavit. her application could not be rejected on the ground that the application for permission to transfer the permit was not genuine. The S.T.A.T. could have called upon the petitioner to file better affidavit. It will be noticed that the Act or the Rules made thereunder do not specify the ground on which the application can be rejected. But it is obvious that an application which is not a bona fide application or which is intended to serve as a cloak for illegal transfers or which seeks to defeat the provisions of an existing law or is contrary to any public policy or through which the transferor intends to make illegal gain, would straightway be rejected. This, however, is not the situation in the instant case. The application for permission to transfer the permit cannot be said to fall under any of the categories illustratively specified above. This, however, is not the situation in the instant case. The application for permission to transfer the permit cannot be said to fall under any of the categories illustratively specified above. The conclusions reached by the S. T. A. T. as also by the R.T.A. are wholly unjustified and cannot be sustained. The decisions in the impugned orders are. therefore, liable to be quashed. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 3/4-11-81 passed by the R.T.A. and the order dated 1-8-83 passed by the S.T.A.T. are hereby quashed. The case is remanded to the R.T.A. to reconsider the application of petitioner No. 1 under S. 59(1) I of the Act read with R. 67(1) of the Motor Vehicles Rules and to dispose it of afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made above. The application shall be disposed of at the earliest, say in its next meeting. 6. There will be no order as to costs.