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 14th August, 2018, passed by a learned Single Judge in W. P. 25172 (W) of 2017 (Sanatan Purkait & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). 3. By the impugned judgment and order, the writ petition stood dismissed. 4. The instant appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioners. 5. For convenience the entire impugned judgment and order is reproduced in its entirety:- "The writ-petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the Khari Union Large Size Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, has appointed a person as Manager without following the principles of natural justice. It is evident from Rule 104A (3) of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Rules that the Society has exclusive discretion in the matter of engagement of personnel and secondly since the post is not covered within the Cooperative Service Commission, in terms of Section 94 Sub-section (5) of the bye-laws, the desire of the management shall exclusively prevail in such circumstances. For the reasons above, the writ-petitioner's submission that the decision of the management in engaging the personnel is against the principles of natural justice is wholly misplaced. In those circumstances, the writ-petition being WP 25172 (W) of 2017 is dismissed. No order as to costs." 6. Not only we find this appeal thoroughly misconceived but we must also observe that the writ petitioners were shareholders/members of an Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society and the fact that they had moved a writ petition challenging the appointment of a Manager clearly tantamount to interfere with the day to day management of the concerned Cooperative Society which has been entrusted by them to an elected Board of Directors who were elected by the shareholders themselves. 7. That apart and in any event, in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, we are only concerned as to whether the impugned judgment and order suffers from any palpable infirmity or perversity. On a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity. Moreover, the impugned judgment and order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. 8. On a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity. Moreover, the impugned judgment and order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. 8. For reasons stated above, the appeal and the application for stay are liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed.