Judgment :- Mr. Markandey Katju, C J. These writ appeals have been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 15.6.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.18260 of 2005 etc. Batch. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The writ petitions were filed against the timing conference notices under Rule 248 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Admittedly, after the notices, order has been passed by the Regional Transport Authority. 4. Against every order of the Regional Transport Authority there is a right of appeal/revision under Sections 89 or 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Hence in our opinion the writ petitioners should have availed of the alternative remedy and should not have rushed to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution as observed by us in Salam Khan vs. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board and others (2005 I L.W. 676). Entertaining writ petitions by High Courts directly without insisting the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy, has contributed to the heavy overflow of the dockets of the various High Courts in the country. 5. No doubt, alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the filing of writ petitions, but at the same time it is well settled that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and when there is an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal/revision, writ petition should not be entertained. Such practice of entertaining writ petitions by High Courts is not proper and against the settled legal principles, vide Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. C.Durai, 2005 Writ L.R.136. 6. No doubt, in this case, the writ petitions have been allowed by the learned single Judge. However, there are several cases where a Division Bench of the High Court had allowed the writ petition but thereafter in the appeal the Supreme Court not only allowed the appeal but dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy e.g. S. Jagadeesan vs. A.N.J.A. College, AIR 1984 SC 1512 , U.P.State Bridge Corporation Ltd. v. U.P.Rajya Setu Nigam Karmchari Sangh, 2005 AIR SCW 3149. Hence there is no absolute principle that a writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy after it has been allowed or on the ground that it has been pending for a long time. Hence there is no absolute principle that a writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy after it has been allowed or on the ground that it has been pending for a long time. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners (respondents in the appeals) has submitted that there is allegation of violation of natural justice and hence the writ petitions cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. This Court in The Member Secretary, National Council for Techers Education, New Delhi and another vs. Pauls Teachers Training Institute, Pondicherry ( (2005) 1 M.L.J. 559 ) has held that there is no absolute principle that merely because there is an allegation of violation of natural justice or that the impugned order is without jurisdiction, a writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. 7. For the reason given above, the writ appeals are allowed and the writ petitions are dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the writ petitioners by way of appeal/revision under Section 89 or 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 8. If any such appeal/revision is filed within 30 days from today the same will be entertained by the State Transport Appellate Authority without raising any objection as to limitation and shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.