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 interim order dated 20th September, 2018, passed by a learned Single Judge in CAN 6952 of 2018 connected with WP 23348 (W) of 2017 (Sk. Mujibar Rahaman vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors). 4. By the impugned order, the connected application has been directed to be heard upon exchange of affidavits. 5. The instant appeal has been preferred by some of the private respondents in the writ proceeding. 6. A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that that matter is still pending final adjudication before the learned Single Judge. In an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal interference is usually warranted only when palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on plain reading of the impugned order. We do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity on a plain reading of the impugned order. That apart and in any event, cogent and justifiable reasons have been provided in the impugned order by the learned Single Judge. 7. In such circumstances as stated above, we are minded not to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal and the application for stay are, therefore, liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed. 8. At this juncture, on the prayer of the learned advocate for the appellants, time to file affidavit-in-opposition before the learned Single Judge stands extended by a period of three weeks from date; reply thereto, if any, a fortnight thereafter. The matter shall appear before the learned Single Judge immediately upon expiry of the period for filing of affidavits as directed hereinabove, subject, of course, to the convenience and business of the Court. I agree. - (Arindam Mukherjee, J.)