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 appropriate order. 2. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 25th February, 2019, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 4066 (W) of 2019 (Animesh Gantait vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). By the impugned judgment and order, the writ petition was disposed of without any interference by the writ Court. 3. The instant appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner. 4. For convenience, the impugned judgment and order is reproduced here in below in its entirety:- “The petitioner is aggrieved by a refusal to grant license by the Collector. The respondents are represented by the Additional Advocate General. The impugned order being appealable, and the petitioner having statutory alternative remedy available, I am not minded to interfere. All points raised by the parties are kept open. W.P. No.4066 (W) of 2019 is disposed of. No order as to costs.” 5. On a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it appears that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration that the subject-matter of challenge before the writ Court was an appealable order and the writ petitioner had statutory alternative remedy available. As such, the learned Single Judge chose not to interfere. 6. In an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless 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. 7. We are of the view that the issue which the appellant/writ petitioner is seeking to raise, is essentially a factual issue. The issue is, whether the temple in-question falls within the scope of restrictions provided under Rule 8 of the West Bengal Excise (Selection of New Sites and Grant of License for Retail Sale of Liquor and Certain Other Intoxicants) Rules, 2003. The issue is, whether the temple in-question falls within the scope of restrictions provided under Rule 8 of the West Bengal Excise (Selection of New Sites and Grant of License for Retail Sale of Liquor and Certain Other Intoxicants) Rules, 2003. According to us, in order to clearly establish his case that the restrictions as imposed under Rule 8 are inapplicable, he has to lead evidence before the concerned Appellate Authority and the concerned Appellate Authority is also required to take into consideration as to whether the temple-in-question is at all an unauthorised one or not. Neither this Court of Appeal nor the writ Court could be the proper forum to adjudicate on these factual issues which the Appellate Authority is competent to go into. 8. For reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal which stands disposed of along with the application for appropriate order in terms of the observations made hereinabove. 9. Urgent photo state certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. Biswanath Somadder, J. : I agree.