V. M. SAHAI, J. ( 1 ) A mention has been made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the matter is extremely urgent. I am satisfied that the matter is urgent, therefore, the requirement of notice as per sub-rule (4) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court is dispensed with. ( 2 ) HEARD Sri D. B. Yadav learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. K. Upadhyaya learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was admitted in M. Com. (Previous) course of Banaras Hindu University on 2. 8. 2000. His father fell ill and was admitted in Nazareth Hospital, Allahabad on 7. 8. 2000 where he died on 13. 8. 2000. The medical certificate has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. In paragraph 4 of the petition it has been stated that in the Entrance Examination for admission to M. Com. course the petitioner secured 5th position which shows that he is a brilliant student. He could not attend his classes, as he was disturbed due to his fathers death and the petitioners family was facing financial problems. In paragraph 7 it has been stated that the petitioner had no means to stay at Varanasi, therefore, he could not attend the classes of M. Com. (Previous ). However, he depsoited examination fee on 9. 11. 2000. Thereafter it appears that he missed some more classes due to financial trouble. His attendance fell short. As per the ordinance of the university a candidate is required to have 75% attendance for appearing in examination of the university. ( 4 ) SRI V. K. Upadhyaya the learned Counsel for the respondents has produced instructions received from university by fax that the petitioners attendance is only about 24%. As per ordinance of the university the academic council can condone the shortage in attendance on cogent reasons. The petitioner applied on 23. 2. 2001 to the Vice-Chancellor/chairman, Academic council, Banaras Hindu University attaching the death certificate of his father and clearly stating therein that his life became so complicated because of family problems, economical problems and other different problems that he could not succeed in attending regular classes and his attendance fell short. He prayed that his father was a simple fanner and his financial condition is very weak, therefore, shortage in his attendance be condoned. He prayed that his father was a simple fanner and his financial condition is very weak, therefore, shortage in his attendance be condoned. ( 5 ) SRI V. K. Upadhyaya learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on a Division bench decision in Banaras Hindu University and Anr. v. Shashwat Vikram Gupta, Special appeal No. 423 of 1996, decided on 24. 5. 1996 and urged that the power to condone shortage in attendance vested in the Academic Council. He vehemently argued that this Court cannot in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 take upon itself the power of Academic Council. It can direct the Academic Council to examine the matter and pass appropriate orders. The Division bench decision was given in different circumstances. The Counsel appearing for the university made a statement before the Court that the Academic Council would take decision on the application of the petitioner, but since no application had ealrier been filed by the petitioner, there was no question for considering the delay in shortage of attendance of the petitioner by the academic Council. The Divison Bench, therefore, directed the Academic Council to take a decision in the matter of the students with regard to shortage in attendance and the petitioners were permitted to make representation to the Vice- Chancellor and if the Academic Council condoned the deficiency then the university would hold special examination for them. In the present case the petitioner has made an application to the Academic Council on 23. 2. 2001, but no decision has been taken by the Academic Council nor the instructions produced by Sri V. K. Upadhyaya show that any decision has been taken by the Academic Council on the application of the petitioner. Sri Upadhyaya has produced instructions obtained from the university by fax in which it has been stated that attendance of petitioner was only 24%. Twice shortage in attendance was displayed on the notice board and once it was communicated on 8. 1. 2001 to the petitioner but the instructions of the university does not disclose that any decision has been taken by the Academic Council on the application of the petitioner for condoning the shortage in attendance as cogent reason existed due to which the petitioners attendance was short. 1. 2001 to the petitioner but the instructions of the university does not disclose that any decision has been taken by the Academic Council on the application of the petitioner for condoning the shortage in attendance as cogent reason existed due to which the petitioners attendance was short. ( 6 ) I am conscious of the fact that in matters of discipline it is the decision of the Academic council that should be respected. But where the rules provide that the shortage in attendance can be condoned by the Vice-Chancellor/academic Council for cogent reasons then it casts a duty on the authority to exercise the power reasonably in order to promote the purpose of the rule. When the petitioner came to know that his attendance was short, he made representation but no order appears to have been passed on it. The authorities failed to discharge their duty. There are two courses open to this Court, one to direct the Academic Council to decide it, or the other, to examine itself whether from the documents filed by the petitioner cogent reasons are made out. The latter course is an exception, to be resorted where if the Court fails to take action the entire purpose would be frustrated. Since the examinations are going to start from 27. 3. 2001, I am of the opinion that this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 can decide whether cogent reasons for condonation of shortage in attendance existed or not. ( 7 ) ONCE an application is made by a student to the Academic Council for condoning the shortage in attendance it is under a legal duty to pass appropriate orders within reasonable time to enable the student to appear in the examination and prepare for the examiantion. It appears reasonable that the Academic Council must take a decision atleast two weeks before commencement of the examination. But the Academic Council has not taken any decision on the application of the petitioner, which is pending before Academic Council from 23. 2. 2001. The M. Com. (Previous)Examination is scheduled to commence from 27. 3. 2001. For the lapse on the part of the academic Council of the university in not passing appropriate order on the application for condonation of shortage in attendance, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. The petitoners father fell ill and he died. 2. 2001. The M. Com. (Previous)Examination is scheduled to commence from 27. 3. 2001. For the lapse on the part of the academic Council of the university in not passing appropriate order on the application for condonation of shortage in attendance, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. The petitoners father fell ill and he died. There could be no greater misfortune in the life of a young man than the death of his father. This was aggravated by petitioners financial difficulty. Poverty in our country is a course. The petitioner is a son of a poor farmer. He is a brilliant student who is interested in pursuing higher studies. But he has no means to arrange living at Varanasi. This financial difficulty coupled with death of his father shattered the ptitioner he could not be regular. Cogent means pertinent. The shortage of attendance in the circumstances was for the reason beyond the control of the petitioner. I am, therefore, satisfied that there were cogent reasons for shortrage in attendance of the petitioner. Therefore, the shortage in attendance of the petitioner deserves to be condoned and he is entitled to appear in M. Com. (Previous)Examination scheduled to commence from 27. 3. 2001. The university has already allotted roll number 00001085 and issued admit card of the petitioner to respondent No. 2. ( 8 ) THIS petition is finally disposed of with a direction to respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in M. Com. (Previous) Examination scheduled to commence from 27. 3. 2001. Any shortage, in attendance of the petitioner shall stand condoned. The respondents No. 2 and 3 are directed to issue admit card to the petitioner on or before 24. 3. 2001. A certified copy of this order shall be produced by the petitioner before respondent No. 3. ( 9 ) LET a certified copy of this order be issued to learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charged within 24 hours. .