Kailash Singh Vs. Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration) and anr.

motor vehicles - withdrawal of vehicle from use - rule 22 of u.p. motor vehicles taxation rules, 1998 - application made to seek no objection certificate - nothing to show that petitioner complied with the provision of rule 22 which prescribes procedure in case of withdrawal of vehicle from use - held, in the event of non compliance with the procedure prescribed by statute no benefit can be claimed by any person. - u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]. - 3. it is well-settled that where a provision is made in a statute prescribing the particular procedure, that particular procedure has to be followed and in the event of non-compliance of that procedure, no benefit can be claimed by a person.s.k. sen, c.j. 1. heard shri a. k. dixit, learned advocate for the petitioner and shri s. p. kesarwani, learned standing counsel for the respondent.2. the counsel for the petitioner contended that documents of the vehicle has been surrendered on 29.1.2000. our attention has been drawn to annexure-1 to the writ petition. a perusal of annexure-1 to the. writ petition reveals that said document ts only an application seeking no objection certificate. there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has complied with the provision of rule 22 of u. p. motor vehicle taxation rule, 1998, wherein the procedure has been prescribed in the case of withdrawing the vehicle from use.3. it is well-settled that where a provision is made in a statute prescribing the particular procedure, that particular procedure has to be followed and in the event of non-compliance of that procedure, no benefit can be claimed by a person. 4. in view of the above, there is no infirmity in the order dated 18.6.2002. we are not inclined to grant any relief to the writ petition. 5. the writ petition being without any merit fails and is dismissed.