JUDGMENT : 1. All these petitions are filed by Colour Merchant Co-operative Bank challenging the order passed by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal [‘Tribunal’ for short] in respective appeals quashing and setting aside the judgment and award passed by the Board of Nominees in Lavad Cases for recovery of the outstanding dues from the respondents. 2. Special Civil Application No. 3903 of 2008 is filed against the order dated 05.05.2008 passed by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal in Appeal No. 261 of 2002 filed by the legal heirs of late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar against the judgment and award dated 31.12.2001 passed by the Board of Nominees at Ahmedabad in Lavad Case No. 1545 of 1995. 3. The petitioner-Bank is registered under the provisions of the Gujarat State Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act, 1961’]. Late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar, at the relevant point of time, was Joint Managing Director of the petitioner-Bank who is now represented by his legal heirs who are respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/6 in SCA No. 3903 of 2008. Respondent No.2-M/s. Dharmanath Textile and respondent No.3- M/s. Vir Traders were proprietorship concern of Mr. Niranjan A. Shah and Late Sevantilal Manilal Shah represented through his legal heirs being respondent No.3/1 to 3/3 in SCA No. 3903 of 2008 whereas Respondent No.4-Bharatbhai Pamanlal Shah was Manager of the petitioner-Bank at the relevant point of time. 4. It is the case of the petitioner bank that in the year 1990, Rs. 25,01,800/- of the petitioner-Bank was siphoned away systematically in the name of different parties including respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar and respondent No.4-Bharatbhai Shah-Ex- Manager of the petitioner-Bank in collusion with such parties. 5. The petitioner-Bank therefore, initiated action against Late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar and respondent No.4 and other account holders including respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 6. The petitioner-Bank filed 15 criminal complaints on 12.01.1990 against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and others in Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad. A notice was issued under section 76B of the Act,1961 on 17.02.1992 to the deceased Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar by the District Registrar (Ahmedabad City) for misappropriation of funds of Rs. 25,01,800/-. 7. The District Registrar vide order dated 11.08.1992 passed an order to remove deceased Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar from the post of Joint Managing Director of the petitioner-Bank for the period of four years. 25,01,800/-. 7. The District Registrar vide order dated 11.08.1992 passed an order to remove deceased Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar from the post of Joint Managing Director of the petitioner-Bank for the period of four years. The said order was challenged by late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar by preferring Revision Application No. 71 of 1992 before the Additional Registrar, Gujarat State at Gandhinagar. The order of the District Registrar was partly modified by the order dated 13.01.1993 in the Revision Application to the extent that Late Lalbhai was ordered to be disqualified for four years for the said post and to contest the election. 8. Late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar preferred Special Civil Application No. 2391 of 2013 before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 25.10.1994 on the ground of alternative remedy. Late Lalbhai Bhoilal Bhavsar thereafter preferred Revision Application under section 155 of the Act, 1961 before the State Government which was also dismissed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) which had become final in absence of any challenge by Late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar before the higher forum. 9. The District Registrar (Ahmedabad City) initiated proceedings under section 93 of the Act, 1961 against Late Lalbhai Bhavsar and others on the basis of the audit report for the year 1989-90 and issued show-cause notice dated 19.09.1991. An Inquiry Officer was appointed on 16.12.1991. The Inquiry Officer, after considering the explanation given by Late Lalbhai Bhavsar pursuant to the show-cause notice, submitted charge-sheet against him and others and framed five charges on 21.05.1992. The said order of framing charges was challenged by Late Lalbhai Bhavsar before the Tribunal in Revision Application No. 165 of 1992. The Tribunal, by order dated 13.08.1993, quashed and set aside the Charge No.2 in respect of misappropriation of amount of Rs. 25,01,800/- of the petitioner-Bank against late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar. 10. The petitioner-Bank therefore preferred Special Civil Application No. 8160 of 1993 to challenge the order dated 13.08.1993 passed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner-Bank filed Lavad Case Nos. 1329/1995, 1337/1995, 1338/1995, 1339/1995, 1532/1995, 1533/1995, 1545/1995, 1546/1995 in the Court of Board of Nominees at Ahmedabad on 27.09.1995 against late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar and others for recovery of the aforesaid amount with interest @ 18% per annumfrom 01.12.1994. 11. Lavad Case No. 1545 of 1995 was against M/s. Vir Traders- Respondent Nos. 1329/1995, 1337/1995, 1338/1995, 1339/1995, 1532/1995, 1533/1995, 1545/1995, 1546/1995 in the Court of Board of Nominees at Ahmedabad on 27.09.1995 against late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar and others for recovery of the aforesaid amount with interest @ 18% per annumfrom 01.12.1994. 11. Lavad Case No. 1545 of 1995 was against M/s. Vir Traders- Respondent Nos. 2 and M/s. Dharamnath Textile- respondent No.3 whereas, Lavad Case No. 1546 of 1995 was filed against M/s. Vir Traders and M/s. Mahavir Textiles, Lavad Case No. 1532 of 1995 was filed against M/s. Niru Traders and M/s. Dharmnath Textiles. 12. In the aforementioned Lavad Cases, it was contended that the respective defendants opened the current accounts with the petitioner-Bank and Late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar alongwith respondent No.4-Bharatbhai Manilal Shah in connivance with the respective account holders credited the amount in such current accounts in the year 1989-90 though there was no balance in the current accounts and debited the said amount in bill purchase account of the Bank misusing their powers though no such facility was granted or sanctioned in favour of the account holders by the petitioner-Bank. It was also alleged that these current accounts were opened in the name of relatives of late LalbhaiBhogilal Bhavsar. 13. This Court [Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.N.Mathur, as His Lordship was then] vide order dated 18.12.1995 allowed Civil Application No. 141 of 1995 filed by the petitioner-Bank in Special Civil Application No. 8160 of 1993 by staying the order dated 13.08.1993 passed by the Tribunal in Revision Application No. 165 of 1993. 14. The District Registrar Co-operative Societies [Ahmedabad City] by order dated 01.07.1996 quashed and set aside order passed under section 93 of the Act,1961 as per the recommendation received from the Inquiry Officer vide order dated 16.05.1996 as a Lavad Cases under section 96 of the Act,1961 were filed for recovery of the same amount. The petitioner, therefore, withdrew Special Civil Application No. 8160 of 1993. 15. The Board of Nominees at Ahmedabad had taken common evidence as common question of facts were involved in five Lavad Cases filed by the petitioner against the respondents and by common judgment and award dated 31.12.2012 passed an award of Rs. 7,75,800.95 plus interest @ 18% from 01.02.1994 with cost of Rs. 15. The Board of Nominees at Ahmedabad had taken common evidence as common question of facts were involved in five Lavad Cases filed by the petitioner against the respondents and by common judgment and award dated 31.12.2012 passed an award of Rs. 7,75,800.95 plus interest @ 18% from 01.02.1994 with cost of Rs. 5,000/- against the respondents in Lavad Case No. 1545 of 1995 to be payable to the petitioner bank jointly and severally in favour of the petitioner-Bank in other four Lavad Cases. The Board of Nominees also confirmed the interim injunction against the properties of the respondents mentioned in the schedule of stay application. 16. Late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar feeling aggrieved preferred Appeal No. 261 of 2002 whereas respondent No.2-M/s. Dharamnath Textiles and respondent No.3-M/s. Vir Traders preferred Appeal Nos. 185 of 2002 and 263 of 2002 respectively and respondent No. 4 preferred Appeal No. 190 of 2002 before the Tribunal challenging judgment and award passed by the Board of Nominees in Lavad Case No. 1545 of 1995 and the Tribunal by order dated 05.02.2008 passed in Appeal No. 261 of 2002 preferred by Late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar confirmed the judgment and award passed by the Board of Nominees against respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, but quashed and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Board of Nominees against Late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar. 17. Therefore, Special Civil Application No. 3903 of 2008 is filed by the petitioner-Bank against the order dated 05.02.2008 so far as it allowed the Appeal No. 261 of 2002 preferred by Late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar, now represented by his legal heirs. 18. The Board of Nominees passed a common Judgment and Award dated 31.12.2001 in favour of the petitioner bank by passing decree in other Lavad suits considering evidence only in Lavad case. 19. Feeling aggrieved by the common judgment and award passed by the Board of Nominees, the respective account holders preferred appeals before the Tribunal. 20. The Tribunal by common order passed in December, 2012 disposed of the said appeals without entering into merits remanded matters directing the Board of Nominees to proceed with the Lavad Cases from the stage of recording evidence and further directed to deliver separate judgment in each Lavad Case. 21. 20. The Tribunal by common order passed in December, 2012 disposed of the said appeals without entering into merits remanded matters directing the Board of Nominees to proceed with the Lavad Cases from the stage of recording evidence and further directed to deliver separate judgment in each Lavad Case. 21. The petitioner being aggrieved by the common order passed by the Tribunal remanding the matter back to the Board of Nominees preferred Special Civil Application No. 3327 to 3338 of 2008 before this Court. This Court by order dated 18.07.2014 disposed of the said writ petitions remanding the matter back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal thereafter passed a common judgment dated 09.02.2015 and allowed the Appeal Nos. 183, 189, 243, 265 of 2002 arising from the common judgment and award of the Board of Nominees dated 31.12.2001 passed in Lavad Case No. 1532 of 1995 and Appeal Nos. 186, 191, 262, 264 of 2002 arising out of the Lavad Case No. 1546 of 1995 and Appeal Nos. 263, 185 of 2002 arising out of the Lavad Case No. 1545 of 1995. However, the Tribunal dismissed the Appeal Nos. 184, 192, 259, 260 of 2002 arising out of the common judgment in Lavad Case No. 1533 of 1995. 22. The petitioner therefore preferred Special Civil Application No. 4414 of 2015 as the substantive petition and Special Civil Application Nos. 4415 to 4426 of 2015 as one-page petitions challenging the common judgment and order dated 09.02.2015 passed by the Tribunal by which the appeals were allowed by the Tribunal as stated here-in-above. 23. During the course of hearing of the Special Civil Application No. 4414 of 2015, it was learned by the petitioner-Bank that due to change in Gujarat High Court Rules, one page petition filed by the petitioner being Special Civil Application No. 4415 to 4423 of 2015 were de-registered. The petitioner-Bank therefore preferred Special Civil Application Nos. 12627, 12628, 12629, 12630, 12631, 12633, 12634, 12635, 13387 of 2018 as substantive petitions. 24. Therefore effectively, Special Civil Application No. 3903 of 2008 and Special Civil Application No. 4414 of 2015 were argued by the learned advocate for the petitioner-Bank and other Special Civil Application being identical to that of Special Civil Application No. 4414 of 2015 were heard along with the same. 25. 24. Therefore effectively, Special Civil Application No. 3903 of 2008 and Special Civil Application No. 4414 of 2015 were argued by the learned advocate for the petitioner-Bank and other Special Civil Application being identical to that of Special Civil Application No. 4414 of 2015 were heard along with the same. 25. In view of the above facts, first of all Special Civil Application No. 3903 of 2018 is considered on merits. 26. As stated here-in-above, this petition is filed against order dated 05.02.2008 passed by the Tribunal setting aside the judgment and award dated 31.12.2001 passed by the Board of Nominees in Lavad Case No. 1545 of 1995 qua late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar represented by his legal heirs. 27. Learned advocate Mr. N.V.Gandhi for the petitioner-Bank submitted that the entire scam of siphoning of funds was done by late Lalbhai Bhavsar as Joint Managing Director of the petitioner-Bank during the year 1989-1990. He submitted that the modus operandi for siphoning of funds by Late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar was by opening current accounts in the petitioner-bank in name of his relatives and thereafter with the help of the Manager Bharatbhai Shah, the cheques issued by the respective account holders were passed crediting their accounts and debiting the bill purchase accounts of the bank though no such facility was ever sanctioned by the petitioner-Bank. 28. It was submitted that the Tribunal has committed a grave error ignoring the fact that an order under section 93 of the Act, 1961 for recovery of the amounts siphoned by late Lalbhai Bhavsar was passed and he was removed and was disqualified to contest election under section 76B of the Act. 29. It was submitted that the Tribunal has ignored the modus operandi for siphoning of the funds and allowed the appeal qua late Lalbhai Bhavsar only on the ground that there was no evidence to implicate him on record to the effect that there was nothing on record to point out that late Lalbhai Bhavsar gave instructions to pass the cheques by the petitioner-Bank. 30. 30. It was further submitted that though the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that without the help of Late Lalbhai Bhavsar and Bharatbhai Shah the account holders could not have siphoned the funds of the petitioner-Bank and though the Tribunal has also believed the fact that the witness of M/s. Dharamnath Textile accepted that the cheques were credited in the respective bank accounts on the basis of the instructions given by late Lalbhai Bhavsar and the accounts were maintained by him and on clearance of the cheques, the account was also closed, the Late lalbhai and respective account holders are held not liable for the amount siphoned off by them. 31. It was submitted that the Board of Nominees, after considering the facts and evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that Lalbhai Bhavsar was the kingpin in the entire scam but the Tribunal considering the order dated 21.05.1992 passed in Revision Application No. 165 of 1992 quashed and set aside the charge against late Lalbhai Bhavsar which is contrary to the facts and evidence which clearly implicate late Lalbhai Bhavsar in the entire scam as per the findings given by the Board of Nominees. 32. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree of the Board of Nominees in respect of Lavad Case Nos. 1532 of 1995, 1545 of 1995 and 1546 of 1995 and upheld the judgment and decree in Lavad Case No. 1533 of 1995 though the Board of Nominees has passed a common judgment and order. It was therefore submitted that the Tribunal has erred in law in quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree in three Lavad Cases and allowing the appeals arising from the Lavad Case No. 1533 of 1995. 33. It was submitted that the Board of Nominees has considered in detail the evidence on record to record the findings with regard to irregularities committed by Late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar and Bharatbhai Shah. It was therefore submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the facts and evidence on record. 34. It was submitted that the petitioner-Bank had filed 15 Lavad Suits before the Board of Nominees in the year 1995 with regard to the cheques issued by the respective account holders who are relatives of late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar. Learned advocate Mr. 34. It was submitted that the petitioner-Bank had filed 15 Lavad Suits before the Board of Nominees in the year 1995 with regard to the cheques issued by the respective account holders who are relatives of late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi relied upon the statement at Annexure ‘C’ at page 76 of the Special Civil Application No. 4414 of 2015 to demonstrate that total 26 cheques were issued amounting to Rs. 25,81,008/- from 03.03.1989 to 07.08.1989, out of which 24 cheques were of Rs. 1 lakh and 02 cheques were of Rs. 50,000/- and though there was insufficient balance in the account of the drawers, the amount was credited in the respective accounts. It was submitted that so far as 11 other Lavad Suits are concerned, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals arising from the same. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has placed on record the statement of the relevant data to submit that these petitions are arising from the order of the Tribunal whereby, appeals arising from the three Lavad Suit viz. 1532 of 1995, 1545 of 1995 and 1546 of 1995 are concerned as under: Sr no Names Suit Amt Rs. Lavad Case no. Date of Award Appeal No. Date of order in Appeal (Remad) SCA No Date of Order in SCA Remind Proceeding before Tribunal Order dtd 09.02.15 SCA No. 1 Niru Traders Dharmnath Textiles 774655.48 1532/95 5 31.12.01 265/02 21.12. 12 3327/12 19.1 2.13 (Rem andi ng the matt ers to the Trib unal for deci ding on meri ts) 265/02 Allowed 12628/18 183/02 3328/13 183/02 189/02 3329/13 189/02 243/02 3330/13 243/02 2 Vir Traders-Mahavir Textiles 253322.07 1546/95 264/12 3337/13 264/12 Allowed 12630/18 186/12 3338/13 186/12 12634/18 191/02 - 191/02 13387/18 262/02 - 262/02 12635/18 3. Vir-Traders-Dharmnath Textiles 775800.05 1545/95 263/02 3335/13 263/02 12630/18 185/02 3336/13 185/02 12633/18 261/02 - - 3903/08 4. Niru Traders-Ahmedabad Textiles 501559.37 1538/95 480/01 3316/13 480/01 Dismissed 479/01 3317/13 479/01 493/01 3318/13 493/01 5 Niru Traders-Pashwanath Textiles 260072.92 1539/95 30.04.01 483/01 20.12. 12 3313/13 483/01 Dismissed 494/01 3314/13 494/01 482/01 3315/13 482/01 6. Vir Traders Ahmedabad Textiles 513394.99 1533/95 259/02 3331/13 259/02 Dismissed 184/02 3332/13 184/02 192/02 3333/13 192/02 3334/13 260/02 7 Narayan Traders-Dharmanath Tex. 260072.95 1529/95 486/01 19.12. 12 3313/13 483/01 Dismissed 494/01 3314/13 494/01 482/01 3315/13 482/01 6. Vir Traders Ahmedabad Textiles 513394.99 1533/95 259/02 3331/13 259/02 Dismissed 184/02 3332/13 184/02 192/02 3333/13 192/02 3334/13 260/02 7 Narayan Traders-Dharmanath Tex. 260072.95 1529/95 486/01 19.12. 12 3319/13 486/01 Dismissed 462/01 3320/13 462/01 481/01 3321/13 481/01 491/01 3322/13 491/01 8 Narayan Traders-Textiles Fabricant 253077.60 1537/95 478/01 3323/13 478/01 Dismissed 463/01 3324/13 463/01 477/01 3325/13 477/01 492/01 3326/13 492/01 9 Bhupendra Traders-Pashwanath Textiles 260072.92 1540/95 10 Bhupendra Traders-Mahavir Textiles 506891.26 1541/95 Appeals/ Review Arising from Lavad Cases are pending before the Tribunal. 11 Bhupendra Traders-Shri silk Mills 260072.02 1530/95 12. Jayshree-Krishna Traders-Nirav Textiles 258230.89 1531/95 13 Jayshree-Krishna Traders-Dharmanat 761106.23 1542/95 14 Jayshree-Krishna Traders-Ahmedabad Textiles 520145.84 1544/95 15 Jayshreekrishna Traders-Shri Silk Mills 260072.92 1543/95 Total 2826592.08 35. It was submitted that the appeals and the review arising from the Lavad Cases from Serial Nos. 9 to 15 in the above table are still pending before the Tribunal for adjudication. 36. It was submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are contrary to the facts and evidence on record and the same are required to be quashed and set aside. 37. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Masoom K. Shah for the respondent No. 1.4 in Special Civil Application No. 12634 of 2018 and 12627 of 2018 appearing for the legal heirs of late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar submitted that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeal filed by the legal heirs of Late Lalbhai Bhavsar and therefore, the respective writ petitions should not be entertained in view of the fact that there is nothing on record to show the involvement on behalf of Late Lalbhai Bhavsar for the alleged siphoning of the funds of the petitioner-Bank. 38. It was submitted that the Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 05.02.2008 in Appeal No. 231 of 2002 and common order dated 09.02.2015 in the appeals arising from the Lavad Suits No. 1532 of 1995, 1545 of 1995 and 1546 of 1995 has rightly recorded that the Board of Nominees has not given any finding or mentioned any details so far as three suits are concerned in the common judgment and decree dated 31.12.2001 taking into consideration the evidence led in Lavad Case No. 1533 of 1995. It was therefore submitted that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeals arising from the Lavad Suit Nos. It was therefore submitted that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeals arising from the Lavad Suit Nos. 1532 of 1995, 1545 of 1995 and 1546 of 1995 in absence of any adjudication on part of the Board of Nominees with regard to the evidence of these three Lavad Suits. 39. It was submitted that the Tribunal after considering the entire case record has come to the conclusion that Late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar was not at all involved in the alleged scam of Rs. 25,01,800/-. It was submitted that the petitioner-Bank has not taken any action from 1989 till 1995 for filing of the Lavad Cases for recovery of the amount and on that ground also, the entire proceeding before the Board of Nominees was beyond the period of limitation. It was therefore submitted that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeals filed by the defendants arising out of the Lavad Case Nos. 1532 of 1995, 1545 of 1995 and 1546 of 1995. 40. Having considered the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the chequered history of the litigation before the Board of Nominees and the Tribunal, it is apparent that the Board of Nominee and the Tribunal have committed a grave error in passing the impugned orders as enumerated below. 41. First of all, the Board of Nominees has committed an error by passing a common judgment and decrees dated 31.12.2001 in all four Lavad Cases being No. 1532 of 1995, 1533 of 1995, 1545 of 1995 and 1546 of 1995 by considering the evidence only in Lavad Case No. 1533 of 1995. Thereafter, the Tribunal in the second round of litigation has also committed an error by allowing the appeals arising out of the Lavad Case No. 1532 of 1995, 1545 of 1995 and 1546 of 1995 filed by legal heirs of Late Lalbhai Bhogilal Bhavsar and other account holders on the ground that the Board of Nominees has not recorded the evidence in respect of the said three Lavad Suits instead of remanding the matter back to the Board of Nominees to take the evidence as it was taken in Lavad Case No. 1533 of 1995. 42. It is also pertinent to note that similar appeals and review applications arising out of the other eleven Lavad Cases are still pending before the Tribunal. 43. 42. It is also pertinent to note that similar appeals and review applications arising out of the other eleven Lavad Cases are still pending before the Tribunal. 43. I am therefore of the opinion that the Board of Nominees is required to take evidence separately in each Lavad Case and could not have passed common Judgment and Award. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the Board of Nominees has considered evidence taken only in one Lavad Case No. 1533 of 1995 to pass the common Judgment and award in favor of the petitioner Bank, without going into further merits of the case, in the interest of justice, following order is passed: (1) The impugned orders passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. 261 of 2002 dated 05.02.2008 and common order dated 09.02.2015 in Appeal Nos. 184/2002,192/2002, 259/2002, 260/2002, 183/2002, 189/2002, 243/2002, 265/2002, 186/2002, 191/2002, 262/2002, 264/2002, 185/2002 and 263/2002 arising out of Lavad Case No. 1532 of 1995, 1545 of 1995 and 1546 of 1995 respectively is modified to the effect that the common Judgment and decree passed in Lavad Case No. 1532 of 1995, 1545 of 1995 and 1546 of 1995 is hereby quashed and set aside. (2) Lavad Case Nos. 1532 of 1995, 1545 of 1995 and 1546 of 1995 before the Board of Nominees are restored to file and Board of Nominees is directed to re-hear all the three Lavad Suits afresh de novo after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Bank and the respective defendants to lead evidence separately independently in each of the Lavad Case and thereafter, pass a separate judgment and award in each of the Lavad Case considering the evidence which may be led by the respective parties before the Board of Nominees. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. (3) It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case of each of the Lavad Case No. 1532 of 1995, 1545 of 1995, 1546 of 1995. Therefore, the Board of Nominees is directed to decide all the three Lavad Cases independently without being influenced by any order passed either by this Court or by the Tribunal in accordance with law. 44. In view of aforesaid directions, all Petitions are accordingly disposed of.