Short Note : 1. The petitioner is a Transport Operator and carries on the business of transport of passengers and goods from one place to another. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the terminal tax on passengers, carried by road by buses, taxies and the tempos, imposed by the State Government under section 341 (1) (a) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. Held : It is to be noted that the power to impose the tax here is not vested in the Notified Area Committee, but in the State Government. The object of section 341 (1) (a) is to empower the State Government to impose those taxes in the Notified Area which a Municipal Council can impose within the Municipal area. The taxes which a Municipal Council can impose are enumerated in section 127 of the Act. Section 341 (1) (a) by reference brings in only section 127 and not other provisions relating to Municipal taxation. The procedure contained in section 129 for imposition of taxes, which is to be followed when a Municipal Council imposes taxes, is not attracted when the State Government impose a tax under section 341 (1) (a). Omission to follow the procedure under section 129, therefore, does not invalidate the imposition. 2. The prohibition contained in section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act is for imposing or enhancing "a tax, toll or licence fee in respect of a motor vehicle". This prohibition relates to the taxes failing within Entries 57 and 59 of List II of 7th Schedule to the Constitution which embrace taxes on vehicles and tolls. Terminal tax on goods and passengers carried by road falls under Entry 56 of List II. The incidence of tax imposed by the State Government is on passengers and not on motor vehicles. The nature of the tax imposed by the State Government is entirely different from a tax in respect of motor vehicles. The prohibition in section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act has thus no application. 3. The last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was not open to the State Government to devise such a machinery for collection of the terminal tax which would require the owner of a transport vehicle to collect the tax from the passengers and to pay it to the State Government. 3. The last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was not open to the State Government to devise such a machinery for collection of the terminal tax which would require the owner of a transport vehicle to collect the tax from the passengers and to pay it to the State Government. This contention is also, in our opinion, without any substance. This point was considered by the Supreme Court in Rai Ramkrishna v. State of Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 1667 . 4. It was also submitted that the duty imposed on the operator to collect the tax violates Article 23 of the Constitution. There is no force in this argument. A similar argument was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court in M.P. Transport Co. v. State of M.P., 1962 JLJ 114, AIR 1963 SC 1667 and 1962 JLJ 114 relied on. Petition dismissed.