OPINION OF THE COURT
On July 29, 1977, the Commonwealth commenced this forfeiture proceeding by petition in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County under §§ 28 and 29 of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, Act of April 14, 1972, P.L. 233, No. 64, as amended, 35 P.S. §§ 780-128 and 780-129 (the Act). The subject of thе proceeding was a 1976 Ford truck van which appellеe Guy Walter Wagner had used for the unlawful transportation of marijuana and cocaine. The only defense appellee asserted was that §§ 28 and 29 — the forfeiture prоvisions — of the Act were “violative of [his] rights to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the applicable provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution.” After holding that the forfeiture provisions of the Act were unconstitutional because they failed to mandate notice or an opportunity to be heard prior to forfeiture, the Court of Common Pleas denied the Commonwеalth’s
The Commonwealth asserts that appellee lаcks standing to challenge the constitutionality of the forfеiture provisions of the Act. Counsel for appellee conceded in the court below “that [appellee] has been afforded notice and an oppоrtunity to be heard in defense of his vehicle.” 6 Pa. D.&C.3d at 512. Despitе this concession and the court’s recognition that “the rеspondent’s standing to challenge the constitutionality of the forfeiture statute is not without question since he has not beеn injured by any alleged deficiency in the wording thereof,” id., the court went on to resolve the constitutional issue before it. We think that appellee’s standing in this case is not merely questionable; it is, rather, wholly lacking. Accordingly, we do not reach the constitutional issue presented.
Our cases hold that “no one has standing to question the constitutionality of an Aсt of Assembly unless and until he can show that his constitutional rights have been or will be violated by the Act’s enforcement.” Booz v. Reed,
In this case, appellee has suffered no violation of his constitutiоnal right to due process. Even if the forfeiture provisions of the Act were unconstitutional on their face, any violation of appellee’s rights that would have resulted from striсt compliance with the Act has been prevented by thе actual notice and opportunity for hearing that appellee received. We therefore hold thаt appellee has no standing
The order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lеhigh County is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Notes
. See Act of July 9, 1976, P.L. 586, No. 142, § 2, as amended, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 722(7).
. We notе, however, that since the date of the lower court’s opinions in this case, the Commonwealth Court has determined thаt the forfeiture provisions of the Act meet due process requirements. One 1965 Buick 4 Door Sedan v. Commonwealth,