Judgment :- The Honourable Chief Justice: These writ appeals have been filed against the impugned interlocutory order dated 24.8.2004 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.21431 and 21432 of 2004. 2. The aforesaid writ petitions were filed against orders of the Regional Transport Authority renewing the permit. 3. Under Section 89/90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 every order of the Regional Transport Authority can be challenged by way of appeal/revision before the State Transport Appellate Authority. Hence there was a clear right of appeal/revision. The petition should not have been entertained at all in view of the clear alternative remedy. We have dismissed a large number of such writ petitions recently. In M/s. Thangamalar Transports, Sulur, Coimbatore District vs. K.A.G. Travels and others (Writ Appeal No.1386 of 2005 etc. batch) dated 22.7.2005 and Senthilnayagam vs. M.Paul Jayaraj and others (W.A.Nos.1417 and 1418 of 2005) dated 27.7.2005 the order of the Regional Transport Authority had in fact been quashed by the learned single Judge against which the writ appeals were filed. We allowed the writ appeals and dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of alternative remedy. In these decisions, we have relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in S.Jagadeesan vs. A.N.J.A. College, AIR 1984 SC 1512 , U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. vs. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam Karamchari Sangh, 2005 AIR SCW 3149 and observed that even if a writ petition has been disposed off, subsequently the appellate court can dismiss the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy, and there is no absolute principle that just because writ petition has been entertained or allowed thereafter it cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. In the present case, the writ petitioner/appellant had a clear alternative remedy of appeal/revision under Section 89/90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but instead it has rushed to this Court by way of writ petitions. 4. It is settled law that writ is a discretionary remedy and if there is an alternative remedy, ordinarily it should not be entertained. We therefore dismiss the writ appeals as well as writ petitions on the ground of alternative remedy. 4. It is settled law that writ is a discretionary remedy and if there is an alternative remedy, ordinarily it should not be entertained. We therefore dismiss the writ appeals as well as writ petitions on the ground of alternative remedy. However, if the appeal/revision is filed by the appellant before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal within three weeks we direct that the same shall be disposed off expeditiously preferably within two months thereafter in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned. If the appeal/revision is filed within three weeks from today, the same will be entertained without raising any objection as to limitation and shall be decided expeditiously as stated above. Connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.