With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Because the order on appeal simply remands the petition back to the administrative law judge for further proceedings (i.e., a formal hearing), it is not a final order. Furthermore, O’Donnell’s has not established the alternative ground for review under section 120.68. Review of the final agency action would provide an adequate remedy. Consequently, we do not have jurisdiction to review it under section 120.68 and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110. APPEAL DISMISSED. SAWAYA, C.J., concurs, and concurs specially with opinion. ORFINGER, J., dissents with opinion. 1 . We considered the possibility of treating this appeal as a petition for writ of prohibition. See, e.g., Dept. of Health and Rehab. Servs. v. Career Serv. Com’n, 448 So.2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (<HOLDING>). However, prior opinions uniformly hold that

A: holding that the superior court may not issue writs of prohibition to review an order denying recusal before final judgment
B: recognizing the supreme courts longstanding jurisdiction over writs of prohibition and mandamus to courts of inferior jurisdiction
C: holding that district courts have power to issue writs of prohibition to administrative agencies to prevent them from exceeding their jurisdiction
D: holding that district court had jurisdiction to consider claims under the all writs act
C.