Back
: Web Portal Upload Not Valid Service for Explosives Licence Suspension
In a significant ruling for licensing law, the has set aside the suspension of an explosives dealer's licence after finding that the authorities relied solely on uploading the suspension order to an online portal, without serving it by post as mandated by the . Justice Mohammed Shaffiq held that prescribes a specific mode of service—by post to the licensee's address—which cannot be replaced with a mere web portal notification.
A Dealer's Business Under Threat
The petitioner, R. Balaraman , is the proprietor of Sri Arunachala Explosives , a licensed explosives dealership in Tiruvannamalai operating since 2006. In , while transporting a consignment of explosives purchased from an authorised dealer in Kerala, his vehicles were intercepted by police and seized despite the production of valid documents. An FIR was subsequently registered under the . Balaraman approached the High Court through a criminal revision, and the vehicles were ordered to be returned; however, the explosives themselves remained subject to legal proceedings.
Later, the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, suspended his licence by an order dated . Critically, Balaraman only learned of this suspension during the hearing of another writ petition—he had never received direct notice of the order.
The Core Dispute: What Constitutes Valid Service?
The petitioner's challenge was narrow: the suspension order had been uploaded to the web portal, but no attempt was made to serve it by post as required under . The respondents countered that since licences are now issued online and notifications are sent via SMS to registered mobile numbers, the licensee should have checked his licence status online.
However, Justice Shaffiq found this argument unsustainable. When pressed, the respondents could not point to any provision permitting service through the web portal. The court noted that unambiguously provides:
"An order of suspension or revocation of a license shall be if sent by post to the address of the licensee entered in the licence."
A Strict Reading of Statutory Compliance
The court emphasised that is postal delivery. Merely uploading the order on a website does not fulfils the statutory requirement. The court also observed that there was no evidence to show the order had been served by post.
“It would be clear that any suspension or revocation of license ought to be made by post to the address of the licensee,” the court stated. “To the contrary, 118(3) appears to indicate that the only mode of service which is contemplated is through post.”
Decision and Implications
Since the impugned order was not served in the manner prescribed by law, the suspension was set aside. The court permitted the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the and Rules.
This judgment underscores the importance of with , even in an increasingly digital administrative landscape. It clarifies that online dissemination of orders cannot substitute for the specific formalities mandated by rules, particularly when such rules directly affect a citizen's livelihood and legal obligations.
Case: | WP No. 18358 of 2026 | | Date:
