JUDGMENT : BISWANATH SOMADDER, J. 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today be taken on record. 2. In spite of service of notice, the respondent authority, namely, the Director General, National Aids Control Organisation (NACO), remains unrepresented. 3. The instant appeal arises out of an order dated 6th July, 2017, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 4040 (W) of 2015 (Chittaranjan Welfare & Research Centre vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors). 4. By the said order, the writ petition was dismissed for reasons stated therein. 5. The instant appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner. For convenience, the impugned order dated 6th July, 2017, is reproduced herein-below in its entirety:- "The petitioner assails a decision of the State not to continue with the project with the petitioner. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, there is a grievance redressal cell of the petitioner. The petitioner had made a request to such grievance redressal cell, however, another person not from the grievance redressal cell had replied to the request made by the petitioner. Moreover, there are amounts due and payable by the State to the petitioner. The same has not been paid. None appears for the State. It appears that there was an arrangement between the State and the respondents in respect of a particular project. Such arrangement had expired by efflux of time. The petitioner had applied for continuation. The State did not agree therewith. The decision of the State not to continue has not been substantiated to be perverse. So far as the claim of money is concerned, the same is not admitted or an acknowledged liability of the State. It is for the petitioner to realise the same in accordance with law. In such circumstances, I find no merit in the present writ petition. W.P.4040 (W) of 2015 is dismissed. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities." 6. A bare perusal of the impugned order as reproduced hereinabove does not reveal any palpable infirmity or perversity which would warrant any interference in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal. That apart and in any event, the impugned order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. A bare perusal of the impugned order as reproduced hereinabove does not reveal any palpable infirmity or perversity which would warrant any interference in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal. That apart and in any event, the impugned order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. As such, we are not inclined to interfere with the appeal and the application for stay, which are liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed. 7. Dismissal of the appeal and the application for stay, however, shall not cause any prejudice to the rights of the appellant, in the event it proceeds for realisation of their dues in accordance with law. I agree. - (Arindam Mukherjee, J.)