JUDGMENT : BISWANATH SOMADDER, J. 1. 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. 2. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 31st July, 2018, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 12911 (W) of 2018 (Kalikinkar Bhattacharjee vs. The Kamarhati Municipality & Ors.). By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss the writ petition with costs assessed at Rs.30,000/- payable by the writ petitioner to the State Legal Services Authority, Kolkata, within a certain time frame. The writ petitioner was further directed not to proceed with his title suit till such time costs was paid. 3. The instant appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner. 4. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that the learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that the writ petitioner, as plaintiff, had filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fourth Court at Sealdah. This fact was drawn to the attention of the learned Single Judge by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the private respondents. The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that the appellant/writ petitioner did not inform his learned advocate with regard to the factum of the suit or the order passed therein. It was under such circumstances that the learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss the writ petition with exemplary costs. 5. In an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed. In the facts of the instant case, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. Moreover, the impugned judgment and order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. Its correctness, as such, cannot be questioned in the present appeal. The conduct of the appellant/writ petitioner of not stating material facts before the learned Single Judge indeed was a serious matter. The learned Single Judge rightly chose not to be lenient with the writ petitioner. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of dismissal of the writ petition. 6. The conduct of the appellant/writ petitioner of not stating material facts before the learned Single Judge indeed was a serious matter. The learned Single Judge rightly chose not to be lenient with the writ petitioner. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of dismissal of the writ petition. 6. On the prayer of the learned advocate representing the appellant, who pleads mercy on behalf of his client, the quantum of costs, however, is reduced from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. The same shall be paid by the appellant/writ petitioner to the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal, within a fortnight from date. Such amount shall be kept earmarked for its utilisation by the Mediation and Conciliation Committee of the High Court. 7. Subject to the above modification, the appeal and the application for stay are liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed. 8. Let this matter appear a fortnight hence, only for the purpose of ascertaining payment of costs in terms of this order. 9. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. Arindam Mukherjee, J. : I agree.