ORDER : J.S. Verma, CJI., B.N. Kirpal and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ. 1. SLP (C).........../97(CC. 4325, 4340, 4361, 4430, 4487/97). - I.A. No. 1 is allowed. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners at considerable length, we are satisfied that there is no infirmity in the High Court's judgment insofar as it relates to the cancellation of the allotments which have been made and the basis of the cancellation. We may, however, observe that the correctness of the other part of the judgment by which some allottees have been left out does not arise for consideration in these special leave petitions and, therefore, there is no occasion to examine the correctness thereof in these special leave petitions. That question is left open for consideration if and when it arises. 3. 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 identity 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. We, therefore, direct that the same Full Bench of the High Court, which has rendered this judgment, would proceed to complete the exercise after due notice to all concerned including those likely to be affected by the final order. 4. The special leave petitions are dismissed. 5. SLP(C).........(CC 4417/97). - I.A. No. 1 is allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the adverse order made by the High Court against the petitioner is the result of misapprehension of the correct facts inasmuch as the principle on which allotments have been cancelled by the High Court do not apply to the peculiar facts of this petition. It is sufficient to observe that this is not a matter for consideration by this Court in the SLP when no interference is being made with the judgment cancelling the allotments on the principle on which it is based. The remedy, if any, if the petitioner's contention be correct, may only be by review in the High Court. 7. It is sufficient to observe that this is not a matter for consideration by this Court in the SLP when no interference is being made with the judgment cancelling the allotments on the principle on which it is based. The remedy, if any, if the petitioner's contention be correct, may only be by review in the High Court. 7. The special leave petition is dismissed. 8. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court for taking the necessary steps as indicated above. Special Leave Petition dismissed.