JUDGMENT : Biswanath Somadder, J. 1. Let the affidavits of service filed in Court today be taken on record. 2. Let the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order handed over to the Court by the appellants be kept with the record. 3. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day’s list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay. 4. The instant appeal arises out of an order dated 12th June, 2018, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 5883 (W) of 2018 (Arun Kumar Roy & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) and has been preferred by the writ petitioners. 5. Even a bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Single Judge has kept the writ petition pending for final disposal after exchange of affidavits. The appeal has been preferred even before the First Court has adjudicated the issues as sought to be raised by the writ petitioners. That apart and in any event, nothing appears to have been decided by the learned Single Judge, as is evident from a plain reading of the impugned order dated 12th June, 2018. In an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, interference is usually warranted when palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the order impugned by the Court of Appeal. We do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities on a plain reading of the same. As such, we do not propose to interfere with the order impugned. 6. However, we make the timeframe for exchange of affidavits – as directed by the learned Single Judge, in the order dated 12th June, 2018 – peremptory in nature. The parties are at liberty to mention upon notice before the learned Single Judge immediately after the expiry of the timeframe for exchange of affidavits so that the writ petition can be disposed of at an early date. 7. The appeal and the application for stay stand disposed of accordingly. 8. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be given to the parties. Arindam Mukherjee, J. – I agree.