Interference with interim orders is warranted only when palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order.

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 stay.

2. The instant appeal arises out of an order dated 22nd June, 2018, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 24394 (W) of 2017 (Jyoti Dey & Ors. vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.). A bare perusal of the order reveals that it is purely interim in nature.

3. The appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioners.

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we do not propose to interfere with the impugned order since 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. We do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity on a plain reading of the impugned order. That apart and in any event, the impugned order is purely interim in nature and is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons.

5. However, we are of the view that the Corporation authorities ought to supply copies of the orders passed by the Hearing Officer which are the subject matter of challenge in the writ proceedings to the appellants/writ petitioners or their Advocate-on-Record. The same may be supplied within a fortnight from date. The appellants may file their affidavit-in-reply before the learned Single Judge within a fortnight thereafter so that the learned Single Judge is able to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously.

6. The appeal and the application for stay stand disposed of accordingly.

7. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.

I agree.