Chandigarh, May 30 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court on Thursday rejected a Gurugram builder's second attempt in three days to withdraw his petition seeking quashing of a corruption case involving a former judge, in a case that has seen unusual procedural developments over the past month. M3M director Roop Bansal had sought to withdraw the petition through senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who told the court he was ready for arguments even during vacation. "Lots of people are allowed to withdraw," Singhvi argued, requesting permission for his client to withdraw the case. However, chief justice Sheel Nagu declined the request and posted the matter for hearing on July 3, noting the court had already "disclosed" its mind to hear the case on merit. The petition seeks to quash an FIR filed by the Haryana anti-corruption bureau in April 2023 against former special CBI court judge Sudhir Parmar, his nephew, and Bansal. They face charges under sections 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for offences relating to public servants being bribed, taking undue advantage without consideration, criminal misconduct and criminal conspiracy. Parmar, who was special CBI judge in Panchkula, is accused of showing favouritism towards Bansal, his brother Basant Bansal of M3M, and Lalit Goyal of the IREO Group. The accused builders had cases pending before Parmar's court involving CBI and enforcement directorate investigations. The case has followed an extraordinary timeline since Bansal filed his petition on April 23. Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu initially heard the matter, issued notice on April 24, and reserved judgment on May 2 after hearing arguments. However, following oral and written complaints received by chief justice Nagu on May 8-9, the case was withdrawn from justice Sindhu on May 10 - just two days before the final order was scheduled. The chief justice ordered the case to be listed before him instead. Thursday's hearing was marked "arguments heard in part," meaning the case will continue before the same bench even after the July roster changes, as part-heard cases are not reassigned. The court will remain closed for summer vacations in June, with hearings resuming in July....