JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - These three petitions, namely Wri$ Petition No. 5965 of 1990, Aditya Chowdhry v. District Magistrate and others), Writ petition No. Nil of 1990 (Aditya Kumar Chowdhry v. Dy. Registrar Cooperative Societies & others) and Writ Petition No. 7041 of 1990 (Rejveer Singh v. State of U.P. & others) (for short first, second and third writ petition respectively). 2. In the first petition the relief claimed is for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 13-2-1990 passed by the District Magistrate, Mathura, convening the meeting of no confidence motion for 17-3-90, and for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 5/6-3-90 of the Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P. Agra, and further for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to permit the Directors who have been removed from the membership of the committee of management in the meeting dated 10-3-90 from participating in the meeting scheduled to be held on 17-3-1990 and further directing the respondents to permit the members co-opted on 10-3-90 to participate in the meeting dated 17-3-1990. 3. Under the second petition the prayer is for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 16-3-90 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies and also for quashing the proceedings dated 17-3-1990. Under the third petition, however, the prayer is for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to function as Chairman of the District Cooperative Bank, Mathura in pursuance of the declaration of result of the meeting date 17-3-1990. 4. In the proceedings dated 17-3-1990 (Annexure-2) 5 members of the Board of Directors were disqualified and thereafter the motion of no confidence was carried out against Aditya Chowdhry, the petition of first two petitions. The motion of no confidence was carried out. Thereafter to elect a new Chairman, nomination was obtained and Tejveer Singh was elected as Chairman. In substance the proceedings of 17-3-90 are challenged in these writ petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the first two writ petitions urged that against the order of disqualification of members the remedy was to approach the arbitrator and similar other remedy which was available under the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and rules. In substance the proceedings of 17-3-90 are challenged in these writ petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the first two writ petitions urged that against the order of disqualification of members the remedy was to approach the arbitrator and similar other remedy which was available under the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and rules. On behalf of petitioner Tejveer Singh, in the third petition it has been urged that the proceedings on that date namely 17-3-90 are perfectly correct and legal and in case the petitioner of the first two petitions feels aggrieved he can avail remedy before the arbitrator and some other similar remedy available under the Act and rules. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that the remedy available to petitioner in the first two Act writ petitions is to seek reference under Section 70 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act arbitration proceedings. In respect of third writ petition the relief was as indicated above, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner as Chairman of the District Cooperative Bank, Mathura. On the first writ petition preferred by Aditya Kumar Chowdhry, this Court on 16-3-90 passed an interim order directing that the meeting scheduled to be held on 17-3-90 may take place but the implementation of outcome of the meeting, shall not be given effect to. 7. As the motion of no confidence has been carried out the. remedy available to petitioner of first two writ petitions is by way of arbitration and under Section 70 and other remedies available under the Act and rules etc., we do not find any justification to stay the implementation of the outcome of the meeting dated 17-3-90. Consequently the result of the meeting dated 17-3-90 is given effect to and we hereby vacate the interim stay dated 16-3-1990. The aggrieved party, may, however, seek alternative remedy available under the Act and rules. 8. With these observations, the present three petitions are disposed of.