Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order suspending the licence of the petitioner, had been passed by the respondent without giving an opportunity of being heard. He had further submitted that the impugned order had been passed by the respondent without a proper show cause notice having been issued to the petitioner. The show cause notice, which had been issued to the petitioner, does not show the specific provision of law, under which the action had been initiated against the petitioner. Even in the impugned order of the respondent, dated 20.07.2012, based on which the licence of the petitioner had been suspended, the correct provision of law had not been mentioned. Therefore, the impugned order of the respondent, dated 20.07.2012, is liable to be set aside. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner specifying the provision of law, under which action had been initiated against him. Thereafter, the petitioner had appeared for a personal enquiry. Based on the submissions, made by the petitioner, the impugned order had been passed by the respondent, on 20.07.2012, suspending the licence of the petitioner, under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998. 4. He had further submitted that an appeal remedy is provided, under Section 19(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998, to challenge the impugned order passed by the respondent, on 20.07.2012. Without availing the appeal remedy, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court finds it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition, as an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, to challenge the impugned order of the respondent, under Section 19(3) of theMotor Vehicles Act, 1998. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to file an appeal, before the authority concerned, as provided under Section 19(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds available to him, as per law, before the authority concerned, including the grounds raised in the present writ petition. On the petitioner preferring such an appeal, the appellate authority concerned shall pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of two weeks thereafter, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed with the above mentioned observations. No cost. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.