Penalty proceedings against a deceased person are invalid where notice and adjudication name the wrong individual.

Penalty under Rule 209A cannot be validly sustained where the notice and adjudication are directed against a person who had already died before the alleged contraventions and before issuance of notice. A mistake described as typographical does not cure a fundamental jurisdictional defect in proceeding against the wrong individual. On the facts, the alleged acts occurred years after the person's death, so the penalty could not be imposed on a deceased person and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 209A could be sustained against a person who had died long before the alleged acts and the issuance of notice.

Analysis: The record showed that the alleged contraventions related to a period many years after the death of the person on whom penalty had been imposed. The notice and the adjudication order proceeded against the wrong individual, and the suggestion that the error was merely typographical did not cure the fundamental defect. A notice cannot validly be issued, nor penalty imposed, on a person who was no longer alive.

Conclusion: The penalty could not be sustained against the deceased person and was set aside.

---