H U D A Vs. ANIL SABHARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Leave granted limited 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 ((SLP (C). . . ./97(C.C. 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 mis-construction of certain words in that order, namely:

(3.) It is sufficient for us to clarify that by the above order dated 7-5-97 this Court upheld cancellation of the allotments out of the discretionary quota made after 31-10-89 and it was further said that any remaining allotments of the same kind should be treated alike to complete the exercise. In other words, our order dated 7-5-97 contained the direction to treat all allotments out of the discretionary quota made after 31-10-89 without any exception, in order to examine the accountability of the concerned authorities as also to avoid any discrimination between allottees subsequent to 31-10-89. That order was, therefore, concerned entirely with the allotment made after 31-10-89 and did not refer to any allotment prior to that date. We consider it necessary to say so to avoid any possible misinterpretation by this Court's order dated 7-5-97.