A petition filed by an advocate “allegedly in public interest”—seeking a probe by the CBI or any other independent agency into a matter in which “allegations have been made against important persons”—has failed to make substantive headway even after six hearings spread over 22 days. Noticing that the matter has been adjourned on five successive occasions after its first hearing, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that no further request for adjournment on behalf of the State and other respondents would be entertained.The petition was first listed on August 31, followed by hearings/listings on September 2, September 8, September 14, September 15 and September 22. The matter was again adjourned on September 22, when the Bench recorded that it was being “successively adjourned” at the request of the counsel for the State of Punjab.“This matter is being successively adjourned on request of the counsel for the State of Punjab. Today also, prayer for adjournment is made, which is strongly opposed by the counsel for the petitioner,” the Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor recorded.Fixing September 30 as the next date of hearing, the Bench directed: “Let this matter be listed once again on September 30. It is made clear that no further request for adjournment, on behalf of the respondents, would be entertained.”In his petition placed before the Bench, petitioner Shailender Singh had contended that the plea petition was being filed seeking issuance directions for transferring the inquiry/investigation – arising out of complaint dated May 24 – to the CBI or any other independent and impartial agency.It was stated that the complaint dated May 24 was submitted before the Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar (Mohali), alleging that a person stated to be a relative of the sitting Chief Minister, Punjab, “was allegedly involved in filing false complaints/cases, including allegations of honey-trapping, through certain female associates and thereafter demanding substantial amounts of money for settling such criminal cases,” the petition read.It was further alleged that the “said person claimed close connections with senior political leaders and government officials, including the wife of the sitting Chief Minister, Punjab. The complaint was accompanied by audio/electronic material allegedly recording conversations relating to such demands”.The petitioner had added: “Despite the serious nature of the allegations and the supporting material, the grievance of the petitioner is that no formal FIR was registered on the complaint for a considerable period. It is further pleaded that, instead of ensuring a fair inquiry and protecting the complainant, the complainant was allegedly threatened and pressurized to withdraw his complaint, compelling him to approach this Court for protection”.The petitioner had further added these circumstances gave rise to a reasonable apprehension regarding the independence, fairness and impartiality of the investigation by the State police machinery. “The matter assumes further significance as Justice (retd) Ranjit Singh has also reportedly highlighted allegations concerning demands for substantial amounts of money for settlement of FIRs. involving allegations of rape. The National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, has issued notice dated August 21 underSection 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, requiring the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab and the Director General of Police, Punjab to submit an action taken report,” it was added.The State counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the petition ought not to be entertained as the petitioner had no locus to file the plea. It is also submitted that the petitioner was “neither the complainant nor the source of information has been specified with regard to the alleged offence”.Taking up the matter, the Bench on the previous date of hearing, asserted: “The counsel for the parties may address the court on the locus of the present petitioner to maintain the present PIL petition”.