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 connected application. 2. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 6th March, 2019, passed by a learned Single Judge in W. P. 4845 (W) of 2019 (Kalpana Dutta. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). By the said impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss the writ petition for reasons stated therein. 3. The appellant before this Court was the writ petitioner. 4. For convenience, the impugned judgment and order is setout hereinbelow in its entirety: - "The petitioner complains of police inaction. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the elder brother of the petitioner was put into a nursing home against the wishes of the elder brother. Complaints to the police have not evoked any response. The elder brother was psychologically evaluated. He relies upon such evaluation report. He submits that, the elder brother has two flats. The elder brother should be allowed to reside at such flats. Learned advocate appearing for the private respondents submits that, the person spoken of is a habitual drunkard. Such person was put into Rehabilitation Centre on previous occasions. This time, he is also at a Rehabilitation Centre. The Doctor of the Rehabilitation Centre required a psychological evaluation of the person. The psychological evaluation was done thereafter. Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that, two complaints were entered as general diaries and that, the disputes are between the family members purely civil in nature. In the facts of the present case, the Writ Court need not intervene. The person spoken of is neither the petitioner nor a party respondent in the proceedings. He is an adult. He is at liberty to stay wherever he wants to. It is not for the petitioner to direct the police to make that person stay at a place of the choice of the petitioner. The petitioner is not the guardian of such person. In such circumstances, no further interference is called for. W.P. 4845 (W) of 2019 is dismissed without any order as to costs." 5. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that the learned Single Judge has supplied cogent and justifiable reasons. 6. The petitioner is not the guardian of such person. In such circumstances, no further interference is called for. W.P. 4845 (W) of 2019 is dismissed without any order as to costs." 5. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that the learned Single Judge has supplied cogent and justifiable reasons. 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. 7. As such, the impugned judgment and order does not warrant any interference. The appeal and the connected application are liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed.