JUDGMENT D.N. Sinha, J. - Plaintiffs have directed this second appeal against the judgment and decree passed he the IV Additional District Judge. Hardoi allowing the appeal of the defendant-respondent after setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge. 2. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from realising toll tax at the rate of Rs. 2 per bus per trip within its local limits. 3. The suit was resisted by the Town Area, Mallawan. 4. The Trial Court held that the toll tax in question was not validly and properly imposed and the Town Area was not competent to realise the said tax from the plaintiffs-respondents He accordingly decreed the plaintiff's suit and restrained the defendant from realising toll tax from the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs 2 per bus per trip within the local limits. On appeal preferred by the Town Area the finding was reversed and the appeal was allowed. This is how this second appeal has been brought before this court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The sole question canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court suffers from legal infirmity inasmuch as, it failed to take into account that the imposition of tax was not duly notified as required by Section 15-B and, therefore, the tax could not be imposed by the Town Area. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and I have no hesitation in observing that the submission is devoid of substance. There is no dispute that Town Area was competent to frame bye-laws for imposition of such a tax. The only dispute raised is that the imposition of tax has not been duly notified as envisaged by subclauses (2) and (l) of Section 5-B. The relevant provisions are as under : "(2) Where the proposals are sanctioned with or without modification by the prescribed authority or if none is appointed the District Magistrate, shall forward a copy of the draft rules on the subject to the State Government. (3) After the rules have been framed by the State Government, a copy thereof shall be forwarded to the prescribed authority or if none is appointed to the District Magistrate and the Committee, and then the committee shall, as soon as may be, by a resolution direct the imposition of the tax with effect from a date to be specified and forward a copy of the resolution to the prescribed authority or if none is appointed the District Magistrate, who shall notify in the come manner prescribed. (4) The notification under sub-section 13) shall be conclusive proof that the tax has been imposed in accordance with the provisions of this Act". 7. The learned counsel concedes that this conclusive proof regarding notification that the tax has been imposed can be drawn but subject to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Hapur Municipality v. Raghu-vendra, ( AIR 1966 SC 693 ]. It has been observed by the court while dealing with the provisions of Section 135 (3) of the U. P. Municipalities Act which is identical to Section 15 (4) of the U. P. Town Areas Act : - "There are certain matter which, of course cannot be established conclusively by a notification under Section 135 (3). For example, no notification can be issued unless there is a special resolution. The special resolution is the sine qua non of the notification. The State Government cannot impose a tax all by itself by notifying the imposition of the tax, without a resolution by the Board. Again the notification cannot authorise the imposition of a tax not included in Section 128 of the Municipalities Act. Neither a Municipal Board nor a State Government can exercise such a power. A tax can only be said to be imposed in accordance with the provisions of the Municipalities Act if it is contemplated by the Act". 8. The learned counsel therefore, argued that since the defendants had failed to bring on record various resolutions to show that the imposition of tax has been duly adopted after publication of the notification in the Gazette, therefore, the realisation of tax was illegal. Unfortunately no such averment has been made in the plaint. The pleadings are vague and therefore, the opposite-parties cannot be blamed for not to have brought each and everything on record. Unfortunately no such averment has been made in the plaint. The pleadings are vague and therefore, the opposite-parties cannot be blamed for not to have brought each and everything on record. If the attack on the realisation of the tax had been made in the light of particular foundation put forward in the plaint then, certainly the opposite-parties could be saddled for not bringing on record each and every resolution. However, I have perused the Gazette notification which is paper no. 29/1 K.a. 1. At page U87 find a reference of the resolution of the Town Area Committee, Mallawan, in which it had been prayed that the proposals be permitted to be brought into effect in the bye-laws. In my opinion, therefore, the presumption as provided under sub clause (4) of Section 15-B with respect to notification published in sub-section (3) can validly be drawn to be conclusive proof of the fact that the tax had been imposed in accordance with the provisions of the Town Area Act. 9. I see no error in the judgment impugned in this appeal. No other point has been pressed. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. I, however, make no order as to costs.