ORDER B.N. Sapru, J. - This Writ Petition has been filed against the judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow, in Appeal No. 78 of 1982 decided on 16-3-1983. 2. The petitioner No. 1 Rajendra Charan Agrawal was the owner of Vehicle No. UST 4252 and held a stage carriage permit No. 1800. The petitioner's permit was in respect of Meerut-Rogta-Barnawa-Binauli-Baraut route. The petitioner No. 1 resided in Muzaffarnagar. The petitioner No. 2 Hari Kishan Gupta is the cousin of the petitioner No. 1. He resided at Meerut. The 'petitioners made a joint application under R. 67 praying that the permit be transferred to Hari Kishan Gupta. The reason given in the application filed under R. 67 of the Motor Vehicles Rules was that since Ram Charan Agarwal lived in Muzaffarnagar, it was difficult for him to supervise the operation of the vehicles as one of the terminees was in Meerut. It was further added that Hari Kishan Gupta was an experienced businessman and he would be able to run the vehicle at a profit; whereas the petitioner No. 1 Ram Charan Agarwal was making a loss. 3. After the application was made, the. Regional Transport Authority required both the petitioners to submit an affidavit stating that no premium, payment or other consideration arising out of the transaction was paid in respect of the transfer of the permit. Such an affidavit was filed by both Ram Charan Agrawal and Hari Kishan Gupta. 4. The application for transfer was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority further directed that a notice should issue to Sri Ram Charan Agrawal to show cause why his permit should not be cancelled. 5. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The appellate authority, as mentioned earlier, dismissed the appeal in so far as the petitioner No. 1 prayed that an order be made that the permit be transferred. It, however, cancelled the show-cause why his permit should not be cancelled. 6. A perusal of the order of the appellate authority indicates that the appellate authority was of the view that in the affidavit filed under R. 67(b) the reason for seeking a transfer of the permit had also to be repeated. This view of the Appellate Tribunal is manifestly erroneous. 7. R. 67(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Rules which are relevant, runs as follows : "67. This view of the Appellate Tribunal is manifestly erroneous. 7. R. 67(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Rules which are relevant, runs as follows : "67. Permit, transfer of (a) When the holder of a permit desires to transfer the permit to some other person under sub-section (1) of S. 59 of the Act, he shall together with the person to whom he desires to make the transfer, make joint application in writing to the Regional Transport Authority by which the permit was issued stating forthwith the reasons for the proposed transfer. (b) On receipt of an application under sub- rule (a) the Regional Transport Authority may require the holder and the other party to state in writing whether any premium, payment or other consideration arising out of transfer, is to pass or passed between them and the nature and amount of any such premium, payment or other consideration." 8. It will be immediately noticed that R.67(a) requires the making of a joint application to the Regional Transport Authority by which the permit was issued stating forthwith the reason for the proposed transfer. No affidavit is required. The only requirement is the application of the nature mentioned in R. 67(a). 9. Under R. 67(b) the requirement is that the holder and the other party will be required to state in writing "whether any premium, payment or other consideration arising out of the transfer" is to pass or passed between them and the nature and amount of any such premium, payment or consideration. 10. In the affidavit filed by Ram Charan Agrawal under R. 67(b) in paragraph 2 it is stated "that no price, or premium of permit No. P.St.P. 1800 of Meerut-Rohta-Baraut route is agreed upon between the deponent and the proposed transferees, neither any price of the permit will be charged in any way even after the permission to transfer the permit." 11. A similar assertion is made in para 3 of the affidavit of Hari Kishan Gupta (Annexure 3 to the writ petition). The procedural requirements of R. 67(a) and (b) were fully satisfied by the petitioner. 12. The basic reason why the Appellate Tribunal has rejected the appeal of the petitioners was that in the affidavits filed by them under R. 67(b) they had not repeated what had been said regarding the reason which impelled them to seek a mutual transfer of the permit. 12. The basic reason why the Appellate Tribunal has rejected the appeal of the petitioners was that in the affidavits filed by them under R. 67(b) they had not repeated what had been said regarding the reason which impelled them to seek a mutual transfer of the permit. This they were not required to do. In view of that, the order of the Appellate Tribunal suffers from a manifest errors of Law. 13. The permit of the petitioners has expired during the pendency of this writ petition. However, Sri L. P. Naithani states that the permit has been renewed. 14. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow, dated 16-3-1983 and the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut Region, Meerut, dated 3/4-11-1981 are quashed. The Regional Transport Authority is directed to consider and dispose of the petitioners' application for transfer of permit in accordance with law and in the light of observations made above. There will be no order as to costs.