JUDGMENT : Biswanath Somadder, J. 1. Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be taken on record. In spite of service of notice, none appears on behalf of the respondents, save and except the learned advocate representing respondent nos. 7 to 9 who is present but prays for time. 2. The appeal arises out of an order dated 14th January, 2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 470 (W) of 2016. 3. The impugned judgment and order is reproduced in its entirety hereinbelow :- “I am convinced on perusal of the record of rights (R.S. at Page 18, C.S. at page 20, L.R. at page 21) of the petition, that the dag numbers 194 and 310 in village – Ankapara, J.L. No. 87, P.S. Haripal, District – Hooghly are a burial ground for the muslims. It is specifically recorded in the said record of rights and not controverted for a considerable length of time that these dags are indeed their burial ground. In those circumstances, any permission given earlier to use these two dags to hold a fair in connection with ‘Urush’ festival was illegal. No such permission can be given now. Any permission given to hold the fair should be modified so as to exclude these two parcels of land. The fair is scheduled to be held between 16th and 19th January, 2016. All the papers are before this Court. Affidavits were not invited. The allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted. The writ application is thus disposed of. Let a plain photocopy of this Order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be given to the learned advocates on-record for the parties, on the usual undertakings”. 4. Even a plain reading of the impugned order reveals that there is no palpable infirmity of reasoning which would warrant any interference in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal. Let a plain photocopy of this Order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be given to the learned advocates on-record for the parties, on the usual undertakings”. 4. Even a plain reading of the impugned order reveals that there is no palpable infirmity of reasoning which would warrant any interference in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal. This Court, however, makes it clear that if the fair in connection with ‘Urush’ festival is sought to be held in an area which is not covered under the Dag numbers as mentioned in the order passed by the learned Single Judge or under other Dag numbers in respect of plots which are similarly used as a burial ground, the local administration shall not stand in the way of holding the fair, provided of course, the appellants are otherwise eligible and fulfil all the terms and conditions that may be laid down by the concerned local authorities. 5. The appeal along with the application for stay stands disposed of accordingly. 6. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. Biswanath Somadder & Sankar Acharyya, JJ. I agree.