Order The petitioners have come up with the above writ petitions challenging the conditional orders of attachment passed under Section 167(2) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. 2. Heard Mr. E.P. Senniyangiri, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Bala Ramesh, learned Government Advocate takes notice for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. M.S. Palanisamy, learned counsel takes notice for respondents 3 to 5. 3. The petitioner in the last writ petition (W.P.No.21605/2014) was appointed as a Pharmacist in the Salem District Consumer Cooperative Wholesale Stores Limited, which is the 4th respondent herein. He was placed under suspension on certain allegations. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, orders of attachment of not only his property, but also the properties of his father Thiru S. Krishnan, who is the petitioner in the second writ petition (W.P.No.21604/2014) and one of his cousins, who is the petitioner in the third writ petition (W.P.No.21605/2014), came to be passed under the impugned proceedings. Contending that the attachment of the properties belonging to third parties is not permissible in law and also contending that without even indicating how the liability arose, the respondents have proceeded to pass the orders of attachment, the petitioners have come up with the above writ petitions. 4. But what the petitioners have not indicated in the affidavits is that these orders have been passed in Execution Proceedings as reflected in the proceedings viz., C.E.P.No.11/2014-15. Unless an arbitration Award under Section 90 of the Act had been passed, Execution Proceedings could not have been initiated leading to the present orders of attachment. If an Award has already been passed, the appropriate remedy and the only remedy open to the petitioners was to file a statutory appeal before the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal under Section 152 of the Act. 5. Even if no Award has been passed to the knowledge of the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to file appeals against the present impugned order. This is the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court in A. Balaraman and others v. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Cheyyar reported in (2009) 3 MLJ 1032 . Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioners to work out their remedies in accordance with law, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.