JUDGMENT : Biswanath Somadder, J. 1. In Re: CAN 1024 of 2019 This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the application for condonation of delay, it appears that sufficient cause has been shown by the applicants to explain the delay in filing of the appeal. As such, the delay is condoned. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly allowed. In Re: MAT 145 of 2019 with CAN 890 of 2019 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 a judgment and order dated 21st December, 2018, passed by a learned Single Judge in W. P. 25726 (W) of 2018 (West Bengal Petroleum Association & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.) as amended by a subsequent order dated 14th January, 2019. 5. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties as also the pleadings which included three separate affidavits filed on behalf of the three Oil Companies, proceeded to observe, inter alia, to the effect that the writ petitioners could not dispute that apprehensions expressed by them and recorded in the order dated 19th December, 2018, have been addressed in the affidavits filed on behalf of the three Oil Companies. 6. The appellants before us are the West Bengal Petroleum Dealers Association and its Honorary General Secretary. 7. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that while considering the issue involved, the learned Single Judge took into consideration the Court's earlier order dated 19th December, 2018, which recorded the apprehensions expressed by the members of the appellant-Association with regard to minimum supply likely to be affected in respect of existing dealers if applications for appointment of further 2500 retail outlet dealers in the State were approved by the three Oil Companies. The learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned judgment and order, took into consideration the three affidavits filed on behalf of the three Oil Companies. Having perused the same, the learned Single Judge came to a categorical finding which is required to be set out here-in-below:- "Pursuant to said order the affidavits have been filed. The learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned judgment and order, took into consideration the three affidavits filed on behalf of the three Oil Companies. Having perused the same, the learned Single Judge came to a categorical finding which is required to be set out here-in-below:- "Pursuant to said order the affidavits have been filed. On behalf of petitioners it cannot be disputed that apprehensions expressed and recorded in said order have been addressed by the affidavits." 8. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge proceeded to dispose of the writ petition accordingly. 9. In an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversity are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. 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. That apart and in any event, the impugned judgment and order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. 10. In such circumstances as stated above, the appeal and the application for stay are liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed. (Arindam Mukherjee, J.) - I agree.