ORDER 1. While considering M.A. No. 1093 of 2018, the High Court found that in respect of an accident that occurred on 11.10.2015, application seeking compensation was dealt with by the petitioner and there were two awards passed by the petitioner. 2. The High Court found that under the first award, a sum of Rs.3,06,000/- was awarded by the petitioner to the concerned claimants under the head of permanent disability, Rs.24,000/- for loss of income, Rs.30,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- for special diet, Rs.20,000/- for transportation and Rs.70,600/-towards medical expenses. Thus, the aggregate sum which was awarded was Rs.4,60,600/-.However, in the second award, certain portions from paragraphs 21 and 25 were scored out by the petitioner, to which initials were also appended, and figures pertaining to medical expenses was enhanced to Rs.2,44,790/-. The aggregate sum of compensation was thus enhanced to Rs.6,34,790/-. 3. Taking cognizance of the fact that there was a second or subsequent award pertaining to the same application for claim where enhanced compensation was awarded, the High Court directed as under: "The Principal Registrar of this Bench shall cause the entire record of the claim case through scanning process and the photocopy and upon comparison and verification with the original record shall keep both the sets of the record in a sealed cover and the same shall be open only under the Court orders. The Principal Registrar of this Bench is directed to send copy of order passed today to the Main Registry, for necessary action." 4. In this petition, this Court issued notice on 04.09.2019 where after the learned counsel for the High Court invited our attention to two different awards both dated 11.10.2017, which show that apart from the changes in the quantum of medical expenses, certain portions from earlier award were also scored out. The relevant part of the earlier award had enabled the Insurance Company to pay the compensation at the initial stage with liberty to recover the compensation from the non-applicants no.1 and 2 before the Tribunal. However, said portion was completely scored out in the second award. The relevant part of the earlier award had enabled the Insurance Company to pay the compensation at the initial stage with liberty to recover the compensation from the non-applicants no.1 and 2 before the Tribunal. However, said portion was completely scored out in the second award. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that soon after the delivery of the award on 11.10.2017, an application seeking review of the award was preferred by the concerned applicants on 30.10.2017 and while dealing with that application, the directions were issued by the present petitioners, which were then incorporated in the corrections so issued in the second award. 5. Be that as it may, the fact remains that even on her showing the petitioner had made corrections in the earlier award. Whether that calls for any action on the part of the High Court on its administrative side, is a decision which must be taken by the administrative side of the High Court. 6. It is true that while dealing with the matter, the Single Judge of the High Court did pass certain remarks against the petitioner, which remarks may affect the course of proceedings, if initiated by the High Court on its administrative side. 7. In the circumstances, all that we can direct at this stage is to permit the High Court, in case the High Court on its administrative side finds it worthy to initiate, to take up such proceedings as are open to be initiated against the petitioner. If such proceedings are initiated, the same shall be taken to logical conclusion, without in anyway being influenced by the remarks passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in the order which is impugned herein. Except for the aforesaid observations, we see no reason to interfere in the present special leave petition. 8. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.