Proper show cause notice is essential before confiscation; participation in proceedings does not cure direct service defects.

Confiscatory proceedings cannot be sustained against a person who was not directly served with the show cause notice initiating the action. The defect was treated as one going to the root of the matter, because proper notice to the person affected is a requirement of natural justice and of jurisdiction before adverse penal or confiscatory action can be imposed. Mere receipt of a copy of the notice or participation in the proceedings did not cure the absence of direct service in these circumstances.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the tempo could be sustained when no show cause notice was issued to the appellant, despite the appellant having received a copy of the notice and participated in the proceedings.

Analysis: The appellant was not the person to whom the show cause notice was addressed, and the confiscatory action was initiated without direct notice to him. The earlier decisions relied upon treated such non-service as a defect going to the root of the matter, not a mere technical irregularity, because penal or confiscatory proceedings require proper notice to the person affected. Participation in the proceedings did not cure the absence of notice in these circumstances.

Conclusion: The confiscation order could not be sustained against the appellant for want of a proper show cause notice, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Confiscatory or penal action cannot be sustained against a person who was not served with the show cause notice initiating the proceedings, as such omission violates the requirement of natural justice and goes to the root of jurisdiction to impose the adverse order.

---