JUDGMENT Hari Swarup, J. - A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this petition on merits. It has been contended by the learned Solicitor Gereral appearing on behalf of the respondents that the petition is liable to be abated under section 58 of the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976. 2. The petition has been filed for a writ, order or direction to quash the election of opposite party No. 3 to the Committee of Management of the U.P. Rajya Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank. Ltd. The petitioner was the member of the general body of this Co-operative Society and opposite party No. 3 was also a member. When the Committee of Management was to be elected, opposite party No, 3 also filed his nomination. Objection was taken to his nomination on the around that his nomination was bad because of the bar contained in Rule 449 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules read with Bye-law 10 of the Society's Bye Laws. The objection was overruled and opposite party No. 3 was permitted to participate in the election. He ultimately succeeded and was declared elected. 3. It has been urged on behalf of the respondents that Section 70 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act provides an adequate alternative remedy against the action of the Returning Officer which is being challenged through this writ petition. Section 70 (1) provides for reference of disputes to arbitration. It reads: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute relating to the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken against a paid servant of a society arises - (a) among members. past members and person claiming through members, past members and deceased members; or....................; Such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for action in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of any such dispute." Sub-section (2) of section 70 provides: "For the purpose of sub-section (1) the following shall be deemed to be included in dispute relating to the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative Society, namely................... (d) all matters relating to the objects of the society mentioned in the bye-laws as also those relating to the election of office-bearers." The U.P. Co-operative Societies Act has been divided into various Chapters. Chapter II deals with the registration of Co-operative Societies, Chapter III deals with its constitution and Chapter IV deals with the management of societies. Section 29, which falls in Chapter IV, provides for the constitution of Committee of Management. Sub-section (1) thereof reads as under : "The management of every co-operative society shall vest in a committee of management constituted in accordance with this Act, the rules and the bye-laws. which shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed by this Act, the rules and the bye-laws." The dispute thus sought to be raised and resolved through the present writ petition relates to the constitution of the Committee of Management. The pith and substance of the plea of the petitioner is that respondent No. 3 is not entitled to participate in the management of the society because he has not been validly elected to the Committee of Management. It is thus clearly a dispute about the management of the Society. The petitioner is a member of the Society. and so is opposite party No. 3. It is thus a dispute among members relating to the management of the Co-operative Society. The dispute is thus covered by sub-section (1) of section 70 of the Act. 4. Even reading Clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 70 will lead to the same conclusion. The election of a member to the Committee of Management will be an election of an office-bearer. An office-bearer has normally the same meaning as an officer. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary "office-bearer" means "officeholder, officer." Under section 2 (o) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act" "officer of a co-operative Society" means the president, vice-president, chairman, vice-chairman, secretary, member of committee of management.............." A member of the committee of management will accordingly be an office-bearer of the society. The matter relating to the election of a member of the committee of management will thus be covered by the illustration contained in clause (d) of sub-section (2) of section 70. The dispute should, therefore, have been referred to the Registrar under Section 70 (1) of the Act. 5. The matter relating to the election of a member of the committee of management will thus be covered by the illustration contained in clause (d) of sub-section (2) of section 70. The dispute should, therefore, have been referred to the Registrar under Section 70 (1) of the Act. 5. Rule 229 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, which prescribes the forum for arbitration of disputes, mentions in sub-rule (2): "Where the dispute relates to the constitution of the committee of management or election or appointment of any office-bearer or a delegate of a co-operative society, reference shall- (a) in the case of an apex co-operative society, be made to the Additional Registrar dealing with the apex society concerned..........." This rule also indicates that the disputes relating to the constitution of the Committee of management are referable to arbitration. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though it may be that a reference can be made of the dispute under Section 70 of the Act to arbitration, it does not provide equally efficacious and adequate alternative remedy as is available to the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution. The only reason which he has been able to give is that in the present case the Registrar, to whom the reference is to be made under Section 70 of the Act, has already expressed the opinion in respect of the question which arises for determination in this case. The contention is that when the objection was raised before the Returning Officer he had asked for the opinion of the Registrar who happens to be the Managing Director of the Co-operative Society. He in turn referred the matter for opinion to the Legal Remembrancer and on receiving the opinion from the Joint Legal Remembrancer communicated it to the Returning Officer on which he acted. The contention is that this must be deemed to be the opinion of the Registrar in the matter. We have not been shown any provision under which the Returning Officer could have asked for the opinion of the Registrar or the Managing Director of the Co-operative Society. The material on record also does not show that the Registrar had applied his own mind in giving the opinion. It appears that he had merely communicated to the Returning Officer the opinion he had received from the Joint Legal Remembrancer. The material on record also does not show that the Registrar had applied his own mind in giving the opinion. It appears that he had merely communicated to the Returning Officer the opinion he had received from the Joint Legal Remembrancer. It is thus not a case in which the Registrar may already have made up his mind. Further, under Rule 229 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act the reference will have to be made to the Additional Registrar as the Co-operative Society in the present case is an apex co-operative society. Clause (c) of Rule 230 provides that the Additional Registrar may decide the dispute himself or appoint an arbitrator or president of the board of arbitrators, as the case may be, an officer of the rank not below that of Class I Gazetted Officer of the State Government or a person who retired as a Class I Gazetted Officer of the State Government. The principle that a person who has formed the opinion should not be appointed arbitrator does not apply to this case. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also urged that he apprehended that the arbitrator, whoever in the present case may be, will not be able to take a view against the opinion of the Joint Legal Remembrancer. We are unable to accept that the apprehension has any reasonable basis. The decision to be made by the arbitrator will be of a quasi judicial character and the opinion given by the Joint Legal Remembrancer cannot be the basis for his decision. He will have to apply his own mind for giving the award. 8. For the reasons given above, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the remedy provided under Section 70 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act is not an adequate or efficacious alternative remedy. 9. The relief claimed in the present writ petition is of a character contemplated by Clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution which provides : "No petition for the redress of any injury referred to in sub-clause (b) or sub-clause (c) of clause (1) shall be entertained if any other remedy for such redress is provided for by or under any other law for the time being in force." Learned counsel contended that once the petition had been admitted, this clause cannot apply. This contention too has no merit in view of sub-section (2) of Section 58 of the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976, which abates all such pending petitions. The present petition will be deemed to be a pending petition within the meaning of Section 58 of the Act and, accordingly, by operation of law, abates. 10. The petition is declared abated. The interim order also abates and is discharged.