Judgment

Verma, CJI.-Leave granted to the question indicated in our order dated 7.7.97.

2. The grievance of the appellants is that our order dated 7.5.97 in Sanjay Jain v. Anil Sabharwal & Ors. (SLP (C)...../97 (CC. 4325/97) has been misconstrued to mean that the legality of allotment of plots made under the discretionary quota even prior to 31.10.89 has been directed by that order to be reopened and examined. It is submitted that such a misinterpretation results from a misconstruction of certain words in that order, namely:

“We are constrained to observe that the accountability of the authori­ties who are responsible for making these arbitrary allotments which have been rightly cancelled by the High Court needs to be examined after their identify is fixed in an appropriate proceeding. In addi­tion, it is also expedient that any remaining allotments of the kind which have been cancelled by the High Court should also be treated alike. This exercise has not been performed by the High Court in the present case. It is, therefore, expedient that as a follow up action, the High Court should proceed to complete the exercise.”

3. It is sufficient for us to clarify that by the above order dated