HC bins order declining transfer of arms licence

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 18

For about five years now, a Haryana-cadre IPS officer has been fighting a different battle — to inherit a .38-bore revolver after his MLA father’s death in November 2015, a weapon that was licensed to him after a terrorist attack on their house left three of the family dead.

Kirat Pal Singh won the first round of the battle when the High Court allowed his petition and quashed the order dated March 31, 2016, whereby his plea for transfer of arms licence was rejected without citing a reason.

Describing the order as “unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary,” Justice Rajiv Narain Raina directed the Union of India to reconsider his case in the “light of the order” before finalising it by passing a speaking order. For the purpose, Justice Raina set a two-month deadline.

The Bench was told that the family was honoured with five Shaurya Chakra after the terrorist attack. Justice Raina observed that an “interesting issue” had been raised by the IPS officer in the case. He was claiming a .38-bore revolver belonging to his late father as “an heirloom by inheritance and succession and transfer of the prohibited and restricted bore handgun in his name”.

Justice Raina observed that the petitioner’s father Harnam Singh was MLA from Shahabad constituency. On April 9, 1988, the family was attacked at their residence by terrorists belonging to the Babbar Khalsa International.

In the assault, the petitioner’s brother Khushdev Singh, sister-in-law Gurpreet Kaur and cousin Gurdeep Singh died on the spot, while his father Harnam Singh, mother Jaswant Kaur and maternal uncle Hira Singh sustained bullet injuries.

Jaswant Kaur got hold of a terrorist by his hair and another terrorist fired at her, following which she received four bullet injuries, but survived. One of the terrorists died of a bullet injury inflicted by his companion. The attack was reviewed for security purposes and the prohibited .38-bore revolver was licensed to Harnam Singh in August 1990.

Justice Raina asserted that the court had hardly any doubt on the petitioner’s capability to handle weapons as it was part of his duty and training. The Union of India obfuscated the entire issue and declined the request on wholly untenable grounds without even caring to read the guidelines on non-prohibited weapon.

Justice Raina added that the court had no doubt that the impugned order was to be set aside on the short ground of being in violation of the principles of natural justice, but mere quashing of the order on the ground was not sufficient. Justice Raina noted that relief was required to be accompanied by directions to immediately to reconsider the case for renewal and transfer of licence.