BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) 1. By consent the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this order. ( 2 ) THE petitoners, who are elected directors, have prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 3-11-1987 inno. DRM: AKSN: 75/86-87 passed by the Deputy Registrar of co-operative Societies, Mysore District, mysore, (respondent-1) in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 30 ( 1) of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959, appointing respondent-2 as an administrator for one year to manage the affairs of the Megalapur Vyavasaya Seva sahakari Sangha Ltd. , Megalapur, Mysore district (respondent-3), a copy of which is produced as Annexure 'e'. ( 3 ) THE Short point for consideration is: whether the impugned order satisfies requirement of law? ( 4 ) THE material facts are as follows: respondent-3 is a Co-operative Society registered under the Act. A General Body meeting of the Society was held on 28. 9. 1987 and on that day the election to the Committee of Management of the society was also conducted. In that election the petitioners and five others were elected. However, it is pointed out that except for three persons, the remaining six were elected as Directors of the Society for the first time. The Society was under the management of the Administrator from 1978 to 1984 and it was only in 1984 the elections were held. 4. 1 It is alleged by the petitioners that the society had undergone vast improvement in the year 1985-86 and a profit of Rs. 4,000/- was realised during that period. Since the accounts of the Society had not been audited during the reign of the administrator, the new Committee got the accounts audited for the period 1978-79 to 1986-87. For the year 1985-86 also the auditing was done and profit was realised for the years 1984-85 and 1986 and this fact was further substantiated by an internal audit showing profit for the 1986-87 also. 4. 2 It is also alleged that the members of the Janata Party having been unsuccessful in the election, brought pressure on respondent-1 to bring the Society under the administration of an Administrator. 4. 4. 2 It is also alleged that the members of the Janata Party having been unsuccessful in the election, brought pressure on respondent-1 to bring the Society under the administration of an Administrator. 4. 3 It is further alleged that the communication of the impugned order was deliberately delayed and, therefore, the petitioners did not receive it in time with the ulterior motive of preventing the petitioners from immediately challenging the impugned order. According to the petitioners, they came to know of the impugned order only on 6. 11. 1987. 4. 4 It is also alleged that though an appeal is provided to the Joint Registrar of co-operative Societies under the Act, the remedy was neither expeditions apeditious; nor efficacious. Therefore, the petitioners challenged the impugned order before this court on the ground that it is violative of the principles of natural justice, and passed without jurisdiction. ( 5 ) I have gone through the show-cause notice issued by the Deputy Registrar of co- operative Societies, Mysore, dated 17. 9. 1987 in which eight allegations have been made against the petitioners and others. T have also gone through the reply or explanation offered by six Directors of the society. The explanation meets every allegation contained in the show-cause notice specifically and clearly. I have also examined the impugned order. ( 6 ) EVEN a cursory glance convinces me that the impugned order is passed without application of mind and without due consideration of the explanation offered by the petitioners in regard to each allegation made in the show-cause notice. Reasons for rejecting the explanation offered by the petitioners in respect of each allegation have not been given and have been dismissed by generalisations that all the allegations have been proved. The conclusion is devoid of reasons and patently the impugned order is a non speaking order. ( 7 ) THE principles of natural justice require that the administrative machinery has to function with legal restraint and that an order emanating from a quasi-judicial authority should not be a product of unfettered discretion or arbitrariness. It is mandatory that the authority should have discussed and examined the explanation offered with reference to each of the allegations and come to a conclusion whether or not the explanation is acceptable. It is mandatory that the authority should have discussed and examined the explanation offered with reference to each of the allegations and come to a conclusion whether or not the explanation is acceptable. A mere formal ritual of having looked into the explanation is not sufficient because natural justice demands the observance of greater consideration and reasonableness to enable the reviewing authority to infer that it does not suffer from unfairness. ( 8 ) I must hold that the impugned order undoubtedly infringes the principles of natural justice and deserves to be quashed as arbitrary and perfunctory. ( 9 ) FOR the foregoing reasons the Writ petition is allowed. The order dated 3. 11. 1987 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mysore District, mysore, as per Annexure-E, is hereby quashed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Writ Petition allowed --- *** --- .