Proper notice to a minor ostensible owner and valid representation are required before ex parte forfeiture proceedings can stand.

A minor ostensible owner was entitled to notice under section 6(2), and service through the natural guardian was ineffective once the guardian refused acceptance. When the authority became aware that notice had not been accepted on the minor's behalf, it was required to secure proper representation for the minor, including appointment of a guardian if necessary. Proceeding ex parte without taking those steps rendered the service defective and invalidated the forfeiture proceedings, with the result that the forfeiture order was liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the forfeiture order was liable to be set aside for want of proper service of notice under section 6(2) on the minor ostensible owner and for proceeding ex parte without securing proper representation of the minor.

Analysis: The minor was the ostensible owner of the properties and was entitled to notice under section 6(2). Service by registered post through the natural guardian did not become effective when the guardian refused to accept the notice. Once the authority knew that the notice had not been accepted on behalf of the minor, it was incumbent on it to ensure proper representation for the minor in the proceedings, including by appointing a guardian if necessary. Proceeding ex parte against the minor without taking such steps rendered the service and the resulting forfeiture proceedings defective.

Conclusion: The notice under section 6(2) was not duly served on the minor, the ex parte proceedings were not valid, and the forfeiture order was liable to be set aside.

---