JUDGMENT : BISWANATH SOMADDER, J. 1. 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 an order dated 30th August, 2018, passed by a learned Single Judge in W. P. 14834 (W) of 2018 (Wajahat Husain vs. Union of India & Ors.). 3. The appellant before us is the writ petitioner, Wajahat Husain. 4. For convenience, the impugned order is set out hereinbelow in its entirety:- "Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner be kept on record. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging inter alia a list published by the Registrar of the Companies naming the directors of the companies who have attracted disqualification under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that section 164(2) of the said Act of 2013 came into operation with effect from 1st April, 2014 and hence the same cannot be made applicable for any period prior thereto and as much, the direction to disqualify the petitioner with effect from the financial year 2013-14 is not sustainable. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 submits that an identical issue was considered by the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay in a group of writ petitions and an order was passed in the same on 22nd March, 2018. Against the said order Special Leave Petitions were preferred by the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, Bombay and in the same the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stayed the operation of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court. Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon considering the materials on record, I am of the opinion that the matter needs to be decided upon exchange of affidavits. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to file their affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. The parties would be at liberty to mention the matter for final hearing after expiry of the period as specified above towards exchange of affidavits." 5. Even a bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that no rights of the parties have been decided by the learned Single Judge and the matter has been directed to be heard finally upon exchange of affidavits. Even a bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that no rights of the parties have been decided by the learned Single Judge and the matter has been directed to be heard finally upon exchange of affidavits. There is no plausible or justifiable reason as to why we should interfere in this matter. 6. 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 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 order. That apart and in any event, the impugned order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. 7. The appeal is thoroughly devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed along with the application for stay and stands accordingly dismissed. Arindam Mukherjee, J. : I agree.