Defendant is in obvious violation of the unambiguous requirements of the statute and by the equally clear mandate of the statute the court has no discretion to do other than order compliance. Dept. of Agriculture v. Watkins, 1966, 244 Or. 484, 419 P.2d 26; United States v. Ruzicka, 1946, 329 U.S. 287, 67 S Ct 207, 91 L ed 290; Jaffe, Enforcement of Administrative Orders, 1963, 76 Harv L Rev 865. Defendant devotes much of its argument to the theory that a cooperative should be excused from full compliance with the statute.