JUDGMENT : BISWANATH SOMADDER, J. 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today be taken on record. 2. 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. 3. The instant appeal arises out of an order dated 3rd September, 2018, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 14671(W) of 2018 (Smt. Krishna Roy Chowdhury vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). 4. By the said order, the learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss the writ petition, however, making it open to the writ petitioner to make a fresh application after obtaining the environmental clearance certificate from the appropriate authority. 5. The instant appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner. 6. According to the learned advocate for the appellant/writ petitioner, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Common Cause vs. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 9 SCC 499 , would not apply in his client’s case, since environmental clearance certificate is a requisite condition for grant of short-term mining licence only in case of a lease-holder. According to the learned advocate for the appellant/writ petitioner his client is not a lease-holder but a mere applicant seeking grant of a short-term mining lease. 7. The above issue - as sought to be raised by the learned advocate for the appellant/writ petitioner - was considered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd September, 2018. The learned Single Judge has held specifically that in view of the exposition of law laid down in the reported judgment, the environmental clearance certificate is necessary in respect of the mining lease/licence - be it for short term or long term. 8. As such, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the facts of the instant case. That apart and in any event, in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, interference is usually warranted only when palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. We do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity on a plain reading the impugned order. Moreover, the impugned order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. Its correctness, as such, cannot be doubted. 9. We do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity on a plain reading the impugned order. Moreover, the impugned order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. Its correctness, as such, cannot be doubted. 9. For reasons stated above, the appeal and the application for stay are liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed. Arindam Mukherjee, J. : I agree.