Judgment :- The Honourable Chief Justice This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 15.7.2004 passed in Writ Petition No.37844 of 2003. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Without entering into the merits of the case, we are of the opinion that since the writ petition was filed against an order of the Regional Transport Authority, the writ petitioner/appellant had an alternative remedy of appeal/revision under Section 89/90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Hence the writ petition itself should not have been entertained as held by us in M/s. Thangamalar Transports, Sulur, Coimbatore District vs. K.A.G.Travels and others (W.A.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). Hence the writ appeal is dismissed. We leave it open to the appellant to file an appeal/revision under Section 89/90 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and if he does so within three weeks from today, the same will be entertained without raising any objection as to limitation and shall be decided preferably within two months thereafter in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned. Any observation on merit made by the learned single Judge will not be taken into consideration by the Tribunal. No costs. W.A.M.P.No.2734 of 2005 is dismissed.