BISWANATH SOMADDER, J.

1. Let the photocopy of the receipt of the payment of costs in terms of the order dated 17th December, 2018, issued by State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal, be taken on record.

2. 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.

3. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 4th October, 2018, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 17598 (W) of 2018 (Norratam Roy & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors).

4. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by remanding the matter to the concerned Prescribed Authority being the local Block Development Officer while directing the said authority to count the Ballot Papers afresh in the light of the discussion made in the judgment and order, upon taking notice of each of the Ballot Papers already cast in favour of the contesting candidates in order to take the electoral exercise to its logical conclusion.

5. The appellants before us are Pampa Barman (Mondal) & seven others, who were the private respondents in the writ proceeding.

6. According to the learned advocate for the appellants, since a resolution was taken to constitute the office bearers of the concerned Gram Panchayat in its first meeting on 23rd August, 2018, the provisions of section 209 (3) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (as amended up-to-date) would have applied and the learned Single Judge ought to have referred the matter to the concerned District Magistrate instead of remanding the matter to the local Block Development Officer.

7. We are unable to accept this contention of the appellants for the simple reason that in the facts of the instant case, the resolution taken to constitute the office bearers of the concerned Gram Panchayat in its first meeting held on 23rd August, 2018, was taken only after counting of the Ballot Papers, irregularity of which was the subject-matter of challenge in the writ proceeding. The palpable irregularity of counting of the Ballot Papers was taken note of and considered by the learned Single Judge, which culminated in the matter being remanded to the Prescribed Authority, being the local Block Development Officer. The provisions of section 209 (3) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, therefore, does not have any manner of application in the facts of the instant case.

8. That apart and in any event, 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. We do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. Moreover, the impugned judgment and order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. The discussions contained in the impugned judgment and order make it clear as to why the matter was required to be remanded to the local Block Development Officer. The Ballot Papers were required to be recounted afresh so that the electoral exercise could be taken to its logical conclusion.

9. At this stage, we must also take note of the stand taken on behalf of the concerned authority, i.e., the local Block Development Officer, who is represented by the learned advocate for the State. The specific stand taken in this regard is that the Prescribed Authority looked into the matter in the light of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order and found that there was palpable irregularity committed in cancellation of the Ballot Papers which ought not to have been cancelled. The local Block Development Officer has, thereafter, taken steps in the matter on 29th November, 2018. In this context, the learned advocate for the State has drawn our attention to the report filed on behalf of the concerned Block Development Officer, which is on record. Perusing the said report we find that on