D. S. SINHA, J. By means of this peti tion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray that a writ, order or direction in the nature of man damus directing the respondents not to im pose and charge octroi from the petitioners, their agents, representatives and their cus tomers on bringing their potatoes for stor ing in their cold Storages be issued. They also pray for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature ofcertiorari quashing the notification published in official Gazette dated llth September, 1982 notifying the imposition of octroi by the Municipal Board, Kayemganj, Farrukhabad, hereinafter called the board, with effect from 1st October, 1982. The impugned notification is Annexure 3 to the petition. 2. In support of the prayer made in the writ petition Shah O. P. Agarwal raised the following three contentions:- (a) Demand and charge of octroi is illegal inasmuch as it has been imposed without following the procedure prescribed under law and 4 about their being located outside the territorial limit of the Board the learned counsel submitted that the same was factually incorrect,. The areas where the petitioning- cold Storages No. 1, 2 and 4 were located were duly included in the limits of the Board and were covered by the notification imposing octroi. 3. The undisputed material facts, as they emerge from the pleadings contained in the petition and the counter affidavit, are those: 4. For the purpose of imposing octroi in exercise of its power under Clause (viii) of sub-section (2) of Section 128 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, hereinafter called the Act, the Board framed proposal, prepared draft rules and published them as in the official Gazette dated 26th Septem ber, 1981 under Section 131 of the Act, inviting objections. No objection were filed. Therefore, the proposals were submitted to the^prescribed Authority under Section 132 of the Act for sanction required by Section 133 of the Act. The Prescribed Authority accorded requisite sanction on 8th Decem ber, 1981. Thereafter, it appears the Board by special resolution directed the imposi tion of octroi and submitted the resolution of the Prescribed Authority as required by Section 135 (1) of the Act. Upon receipt of the resolution, the Prescribed Authority notified in the official Gazette dated 27th February, 1982 the imposition of octroi with effect from 1st October, 1982. 5. Thereafter, it appears the Board by special resolution directed the imposi tion of octroi and submitted the resolution of the Prescribed Authority as required by Section 135 (1) of the Act. Upon receipt of the resolution, the Prescribed Authority notified in the official Gazette dated 27th February, 1982 the imposition of octroi with effect from 1st October, 1982. 5. From the facts noticed above, it is apparent that the entire procedure prescribed by the Act for valid imposition of octroi was duly followed. Otherwise also, the imposition of octroi from the appointed date, namely, 1st October, 1982, having been duly notified in the official Gazette under sub-Section (2) of Section 135 of the Act no objection to the effect that the tax was not imposed in accordance with the provisions of the Act is not sustainable in view of Sub section (3) of Section 135 of the Act which declares that the notification of imposition of a tax under sub-section (2) of Section 135 of Act shall be conclusive proof that the tax has been imposed in accordance with the provision of the Act. The first contention raised on behalf of the petitioning-cold storages, therefore, fails. 6. Second contetion raised on behalf of the petitioning-cold storages also must fail. The alleged order of the Government dated 9th September, 1982 which has been ap pended to the petition as Annexure 2* and relied upon by the learned counsel is, in fact, not an order rescinding the imposition of octroi by the Board. It is a general com munication to the Municipal Board and Kshetra Samities advising them for postponement of the imposition of new taxes and increase in the existing rate of taxes. It cannot be constured as an order rescinding the imposition of imugned Octroi by the Board. Rescinding the imposi tion of a tax has the effect of abolition of the tax. Abolition of a tax imposed by a Municipal Board in exercise of its power under Section 128 of the Act can be effected only after following the procedure prescribed by Sections 131 to 135 of the Act for imposition of the tax vide Section 136 of the Act. There is no material before the court for coming to the conclusion that the impugned octroi, which was validly imposed by the Board, was abolished after following the procedure prescribed therefor. There is no material before the court for coming to the conclusion that the impugned octroi, which was validly imposed by the Board, was abolished after following the procedure prescribed therefor. Thus, the second contention raised on behalf of the petitioning-cold storages fails. 7. The third and last contention raised on behalf of the petitioning-cold storages No. 1,2 and 4 regarding their being located outside the areas of the Board and thereby not being subject to the imposition and pay ment of octroi too has no force. In para graph 12 of the counter affidavit of the Board it is pleaded that the limit of the Board has been increased bylk. m. around the existing limit of the Board. Further, in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit it is pleaded that the petitioning cold storage No. 1. was already within the local limit of the Board and other petitioning-cold storages were subsequently brought within the limit of the Board by virtue of extension of the Municipal area by 1 K. m. around the existing municipal limit. These assertions have not been effectively denied by the petitioners. However, they have pleaded that the procedure prescribed for extention was not followed. The questions whether the petitioning-cold storages No. 1,2 and 4 are located within the limits of the Board or outside the limit and whether procedure for extention of limit was followed or not are the questions of fact and cannot be adjudi cated upon in these proceedings under Ar ticle 226of the Constitution of India. 8. Foregoing discussion leads to an in escapable conclusion that there is no sub stance in the petition and it must fail. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. The inter im order dated 25th February, 1983 shall stand discharged. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .