JUDGMENT : BISWANATH SOMADDER, J. 1. This matter was moved before the learned Single Judge as a "Group IX Residuary Matter", although the issue emanates from proceedings under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act. The advocate-on-record of the writ petitioner could not have possibly presented the writ petition terming it as a "Group IX Residuary Matter". 2. The advocate-on-record for the appellant being the writ petitioner is directed to amend the Presentation Form which was used for the purpose of filing the writ petition before the learned Single Judge as also the Presentation Form which has been used for the purpose of filing the present appeal classifying the matter in the correct determination. We also wish to observe that the advocate son-record of the appellant/writ petitioner both before the learned Single Judge and before us should have been careful and ought to be careful in future. 3. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with all connected applications. 4. The instant appeal arises out of an order dated 13th April, 2017, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 1697 (W) of 2017 (Sri Mantu Prasad Bhagat @ Bhagad vs. The Birbhum District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors.). By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition for reasons stated therein. 5. The instant appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner. 6. A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the same is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. For convenience, the impugned order, in its entirety, is reproduced hereinbelow:- "The petitioner assails an order dated January 2, 2017 passed by the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Society in connection with proceedings with Certificate Case No.5(M) of 2015-16. Initially the complaint of the petitioner was non-furnishing statement of account. The statement of account has now been furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner now seeks a copy of the agreement. This complaint of non-furnishing of agreement was not made at any point of time in course of hearing of the writ petition. The petitioner is unable to demonstrate that in any part or portion of the impugned order is perverse or suffers from illegality. In such circumstances, I am not minded to interfere in the writ petition. This complaint of non-furnishing of agreement was not made at any point of time in course of hearing of the writ petition. The petitioner is unable to demonstrate that in any part or portion of the impugned order is perverse or suffers from illegality. In such circumstances, I am not minded to interfere in the writ petition. WP No.1697 (W) of 2017 is dismissed without any order as to costs." 7. 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 order. On a plain reading of the impugned order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity. 8. In such circumstances, the appeal and all the connected applications are liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed. 9. We, however, made it clear that dismissal of the instant appeal shall not cause any prejudice to the statutory rights of the appellant, if any such right is presently available to him in law. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. Arindam Mukherjee, J. : I agree.