In Mahdavi v. Fair Employment Practice Com. (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 326, the appellant contended that the Commission failed to make a "genuine" investigation of FEPC claims. An arbitrary abuse of discretion was claimed. The court stated: "Traditionally administrative agencies have enjoyed wide latitude in the exercise of their rulemaking powers. Courts have limited review to a determination of whether the agency reasonably interpreted the legislative mandate in promulgating a specific administrative regulation." ( Id., at p. 338.) The court made it clear that an administrative agency does not enjoy unreviewable discretion, but that an arbitrary abuse of discretion has to be shown for the court to conclude that the requirement of investigation had not been complied with.