JUDGMENT 1. - On July 24, 1986 when inspection of appellant-firm was made, it was noticed that 263 bags of Raira (oil seed) was stored in un-declared godown not shown in the licence. The Collector Ajmer issued show cause notice to Chand Mal and confiscated 263 bags of Raira under section 6A of the s Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act'). Chand Mal preferred appeal against the said order before the Committee constituted under the EC Act. It was contended before the Committee that no breach was committed by Chand Mal. The Committee however did not find merit in the submission and dismissed the appeal on December 15, 1990. The writ petition instituted to against the said orders was also dismissed on January 7, 1997. Hence this appeal. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Before proceeding further we deem it appropriate to incorporate section 6B of the EC Act, which reads thus : "6B. Issue of show cause notice before confiscation of foodgrains, etc. (1) No order confiscating any essential commodity, package, covering or receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be made under section 6A unless the owner of such essential commodity, package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance or the person from whom it is seized (a) is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which essential commodity package, covering or receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance; (b) is given an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation; and (c) is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1) no order confiscating any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be made under section 6A if the owner of the animal, vehicle vessel or other conveyance proves to the satisfaction of the Collector that it was used in carrying the essential commodity without the to knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person in-charge of the animal, vehicle, or other conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. (3) No order confiscating any essential commodity package, 15 covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be invalid merely by reason of any defect or irregularity in the notice, given under clause (a) of sub-section (1), if, in giving such notice, the provisions of that clause have been substantially complied with." 4. Section 6B enjoins the duty upon the authority to issue a show cause notice before passing an order of confiscation. In Dharmadeo Yadav v. State of Bihar, 1990 Cr.L.J. 1969 it was held by the Division Bench of Patna High that where representation is made under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 6B by the concerned person denying the grounds of confiscation, the Collector has no option but to make enquiry in the confiscation proceeding and thereafter only he can finally dispose of the case. The expression "giving reasonable opportunity of being heard" used in Section 6B(1)(c) requires an inquiry as the provisions of section 6A of the EC Act is confiscatory and confiscation proceeding is so quasi-criminal in nature. 5. Principles of natural justice require that a person whose right to property is being affected, be given an opportunity of having his say. A reasonable opportunity is to be construed and interpreted in the factual context of each case. 6. Coming to the facts of the instant case we find that notice under section 6B was issued to Chand Mal in his individual capacity. Proceedings of case No. 22/86 were also initiated against Chand Mal. It appears from the record that Chand Mal died on June 4, 1988 and the Committee constituted under the EC Act passed the order on December 15, 1990 i.e. after the death of Chand Mal. It is trite that no proceeding can be continued against a dead person. It can continue only after the legal representatives of the deceased are brought on record. This legal point escaped notice of the learned Single Judge as well as the Committee constituted under the EC Act the impugned orders of the Committee and learned Single Judge deserve to be quashed. Since the Collector Ajmer failed to initiate the inquiry as envisaged under the EC Act the order of Collector Ajmer is not sustainable. 7. For these reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned orders of learned Single Judge, Committee Constituted under the EC Act and the Collector Ajmer. Since the Collector Ajmer failed to initiate the inquiry as envisaged under the EC Act the order of Collector Ajmer is not sustainable. 7. For these reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned orders of learned Single Judge, Committee Constituted under the EC Act and the Collector Ajmer. We remit the case to the District Collector Ajmer to decide the matter afresh. Since this appeal has been filed by the Firm M/s. Gyan Chand Ganesh Chand Vinakaiya & Company, the District Collector shall be at liberty to issue fresh notice under section 6B to the Firm M/s. Gyan Chand Ganesh Chand Vinakaiya & Company and proceed to inquire the matter in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the District Collector Ajmer on January 7, 2008 for seeking further instructions. No costs.Appeal Allowed-Case Remanded To Collector For Decision Afresh. *******