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 re-investigation. 2. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 6th February, 2019, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 950 (W) of 2019 (Chandan Panja vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition without any interference. 3. The instant appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner. 4. For convenience, the impugned judgment and order is set out here in below in its entirety:- “The petitioner complains that, the investigation done by the police is tardy. The State and the private respondents are represented. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the embezzled item being the gold is yet to be recovered. It appears from the record made available to Court that, police started a case, investigated thereon and submitted a charge-sheet on September 18, 2016. The writ petition was affirmed on January 11, 2019. There is no material placed before the Court to suggest that, a reinvestigation is required let alone by a different investigating agency. In such circumstances, I am not minded to interfere. W.P. 950(W) of 2019 is disposed of without any order as to costs.” 5. It is patently evident from the facts of the instant case that the writ petitioner has invoked the high prerogative Constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when he has specific remedy available under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A charge-sheet has been submitted by the police before the Court on 18th September, 2016. If the writ petitioner wanted a re-investigation, he ought not to have slept over the issue till 11th January, 2019 and then choose to file a writ petition after an inordinate period of delay, which the learned Single Judge has duly taken note of. That apart and in any event, as observed earlier, the appellant/writ petitioner's remedy has been adequately provided under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. In an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, interference is usually warranted only when palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. That apart and in any event, as observed earlier, the appellant/writ petitioner's remedy has been adequately provided under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. In an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, interference is usually warranted only when palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts of the instant case, on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity. The impugned judgment and order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. 7. For reasons stated above, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and stands accordingly dismissed along with the connected application. 8. Urgent photo state certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. Arindam Mukherjee, J. : I agree.