JUDGMENT : BISWANATH SOMADDER, J. 1. Let the 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 has been preferred in respect of an order dated 17th September, 2018, passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. 10512 (W) of 2018 (Bihar State Power (Holding) Co. Ltd. Vs. West Bengal State Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council & Anr.). By the impugned order, the writ petition stood dismissed for reasons stated therein. 4. The impugned order has now been challenged by Bihar State Power (Holding) Co. Ltd. For convenience, the impugned order is setout herein-below in its entirety: - "The writ petitioner is aggrieved by an award dated 06.04.2018 under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. The remedy of the writ petitioner, if any, lies under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act before the Court concerned. Hence, with the above observations, the instant writ application stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs." 5. It appears from a plain reading of the impugned order - as reproduced hereinabove - that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition with an observation to the effect that the writ petitioner's remedy lies elsewhere. 6. Looking into the applicable provisions of law, i.e., sections 18 and 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, it appears that in respect of any award passed by the Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, statutory remedy to challenge the award lies under the applicable provisions as contained in the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. This factor has been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge while proceeding to dismiss the writ petition. Clearly, the appellant is required to avail of its statutory remedy. Even if it is a point of jurisdiction, as sought to be raised by the learned advocate of the appellant, such a point can very well be raised while challenging the award invoking the applicable provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. 7. That apart and in any event, in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, interference is usually warranted only when the palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed. 7. That apart and in any event, in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, interference is usually warranted only when the palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed. On a plain reading of the impugned order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity. 8. The appeal and the application for stay, therefore, are liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed. 9. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.