CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE short question that falls for determination in this case is : Whether the orders made under Sec. 30 (1) of the karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 by respondent No. 2 should be sustained by this Court ? As many as 13 charges were levelled against Asad Khan co-operative Housing Society, Belgaum, alleging various acts of omissions and commissions which were derogatory to the interests of the society is apparent from the order dated 2-4-1987. A show cause notice was issued and 6 of the committee Members sent their reply. The reply has not been discussed in the order. All that is said is that the reply sent is not satisfactory and therefore the order which follows; that order is the one superceding the Management of the Cooperative society for a period of one year to take effect from the date the Administrator takes charge of the Co-operative society in question. ( 2 ) THIS Court on the petition filed by the petitioners, on 7-4-1987 stayed the impugned order. In view of the Courts unwillingness to vacate the stay order learned Government-Pleader suggested the matter itself may be disposed of. Therefore, having heard Counsel on both sides, the petition itself is disposed of. ( 3 ) LEARNED Government Pleader submitted that the explanation submitted was not explanation at all as is evident from a perusal of the record and therefore the 2nd respondent Deputy Registrar was justified in passing the impugned order without going into the details of the explanations. It is now well settled principle that a quasi judicial authority must consider every explanation offered pursuant to the show cause notice whether the explanation is satisfactory, relevant or irrelevant is a matter which will only be evident to the Court in the order made if there is discussion of the explanations. The order discloses due application of mind can be inferred by studying the order itself, ex-facie and not by any submissions made on behalf of the officers who, passed the order or on the basis of the records or affidavits filed explaining the order. Perhaps this Court also would have proceeded to supersede the Committee of Management holding that the explanation is not satisfactory. But this Court would have discussed the reasons as to how or why the explanations are rejected. Perhaps this Court also would have proceeded to supersede the Committee of Management holding that the explanation is not satisfactory. But this Court would have discussed the reasons as to how or why the explanations are rejected. If there is no discussion then it is evidence of non-application of mind. Therefore, the order passed is arbitrary and is liable to be set aside with liberty reserved to the 2nd respondent to pass a fresh order after due application of mind. ( 4 ) THIS writ petition is allowed and rule is made absolute. Writ Petition Allwed. --- *** --- .