Markandey Katju, C.J.: This writ appeal is filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 12.10.2004.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition was filed against the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 1.9.2003 issuing a permit in favour of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram Division II, to ply on the route Tiruvannamalai to Melpacher. In our opinion, the writ petition should not have been entertained at all, in view of the fact that an alternative remedy of either filing an appeal under Sec.89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or a revision under Sec.90 of the Motor Vehicles Act is available.

3. Although it is true that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, yet in our opinion, the ordinary rule should ordinarily be followed that when there is an alternative remedy, a writ petition should not ordinarily be entertained.

4. Learned counsel for the first respondent submits that when there is violation of natural justice or when the order is without jurisdiction, then a writ petition can be entertained, vide Baburam v. Zila Parishad, A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 556. We have already observed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document