CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are members of the committee of Management (Directors) of the Chikka Hagu Ati Chikka Harijana girijana Samudaya Tunturu Niravari Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Upparahalli, madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District. ( 2 ) THE Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies by his order dated 18-4-1988 superseded the Management after finding them guilty of five charges of persistent default in the proper conduct of the business of the Society and after examining the explanations offered by the members of the Committee in respect of the show-cause notice issued in that behalf in exercise of his power under Sec. 30 (1) of the K. arnataka Co-operative societies Act, 1959 ('the Act' for short ). Appeal was preferred against the said order before the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies. That appeal also came to be dismissed concurring with the findings recorded by the Assistant Registrar. Therefore this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution inter alia contending that there has been no application of mind by the Assistant Registrar to the explanations offered; that he has mechanically narrated the explanations offered and has come to the conclusions that charges are prepared without any discussion. It is also contended that the latter part of the operative portion of the order disqualifying the members of the Committee is also untenable. Therefore it is contended that the appellate order also suffers from the same errors and as such both the orders are liable to be set aside. ( 3 ) A perusal of the order of the assistant Registrar, Tumkur, clearly demonstrates that the format of writing of the order is more or less the same. The preamble sets out the facts leading to the issue of show cause notice and thereafter the charges. Each charge specifically and explanation given thereto is also considered with full discussion as to whether it is accepted or rejected. The format is not prescribed by any rule made under the Act It is what is in practice in the Department. As long as the finding is with due application of mind, this Court will not insist upon a format which is in-conformity with the judgments of the Courts, Civil or criminal. The format is not prescribed by any rule made under the Act It is what is in practice in the Department. As long as the finding is with due application of mind, this Court will not insist upon a format which is in-conformity with the judgments of the Courts, Civil or criminal. ( 4 ) IN the instant case, the said order dated 18-4-1988 leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that the Officer in question has examined each one of the explanations offered and has given cogent reason for not accepting the explanation. If the appellate authority has concurred it only means he adopts the reasoning of the Assistant Registrar. He is not required to give his separate reasons when he concurs. I am therefore satisfied that there is no merit in the contention urged for quashing the impugned orders. ( 5 ) THE second contention should not detain me longer. There is nothing arbitrary in the latter part of the operative portion of the order as it reflects only mandate of the legislature found in the 1st proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the Act. The very object of super-ceding the committee will be defeated if the same members are allowed to come back to office. Therefore by experience it is found that the default will only be perpetuated if the same members are allowed to be the members of the office of the Directors on the Board or members of the Committee of management. The very purpose of supersession and appointment of the administrator will be defeated if the committee members are permitted to reenter soon after the term of the administrator. Therefore, if they are prevented for four years from holding the office, it cannot ba said that they are arbitrarily prevented from holding their office affecting their right under Article 19. The fact remains that they have been guilty of mismanagement of the society and must pay the penalty for the same. Therefore, there is no merit in the second contention as well. ( 6 ) THIS writ petition is misconceivad and it is rejected. Writ Petition Rejected. --- *** --- .