regarding the attendance of the Writ Petitioners, we do not see that the petitioners had any ground or reason to charge the Board with arbitrariness, malice, malafides, vindictiveness, abuse of powers or any other vice as regards any of its action, that calls for interference through the Writ Court. That being so, examining the material findings in the impugned judgment, we do not see that there was any reason to issue directions in such manner as would amount to command the Board to perform its functions and duties in the particular manner as dictated through the impugned judgment. We say this because, as the affiliating authority, the Board is one empowered to regulate the affiliated establishment through the terms of its affiliation and controlling powers. It regulates the grant of recognition, approval and continued superintendence of the governance of those activities of the educational institution, which relate to matters under the Board's command. In this view of the matter, if the facts of the case disclose that it is the requirement to consider whether there is any shortage of attendance for the students and if so, whether the shortage is to be condoned; such matters were to be left open for the competent authority, namely, the Board, to consider and decide. This would preserve the power and opportunity of the Board, which is the competent authority in that regard, to decide upon relevant issues in accordance with law.
