less. Under general law, they can proceed against the parties to the agreement and claim reliefs in that behalf from the competent Court or Tribunals. We do not think that contractual and factual disputes can be resolved in our limited jurisdiction. Secondly, whether any right is vested in terms of this agreement in the Petitioners, then, that is also something with which we are not concerned in the writ jurisdiction. There are remedies available under the general law insofar as this alleged claim is concerned. To our mind, the allegation of conflicting interests also does not appear to be of substance. It is pointed out in the affidavits as to how the First Petitioner and its certification was an issue insofar as Respondent no.1 and Respondent no.2 are concerned. That the applications seeking accreditation were considered for other courses and those were granted, would indicate as to how the authorities have acted fairly and reasonably. If they have found with regard to a distinct course that the eligibility criteria is not fulfilled by the Petitioners herein, then, their decision not to grant the relief or accreditation, cannot be questioned. All the more, when such criteria is evolved in educational matters and by expert bodies. We are, therefore, of the view that the situation which is taken care of in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Board of Control For Cricket in India Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar and others1 , does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
