Biswanath Somadder, A.C.J.

1. In Re: CAN 3832 of 2017

Affidavit of service filed in Court today be taken on record.

2. This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act.

3. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the application for condonation of delay, it appears that sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant to explain the delay in filing of the appeal. As such, the delay is condoned. The application for condonation of delay, being CAN 3832 of 2017 is accordingly allowed.

In Re: MAT 507 of 2017 with CAN 3824 of 2017

4. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on days list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay.

5. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 25th November, 2016, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 5550 (W) of 2016 (Jhuma Kundu vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors).

6. By the said judgment and order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the three writ petitions while coming to a finding that the writ petitioners were not entitled to any relief, either in law or in equity. The learned Single Judge proceeded to uphold the orders of termination, which were the subject matter of challenge in the writ proceeding.

7. The instant appeal has been preferred by Jhuma Kundu, one of the writ petitioners.

8. Even a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that the learned Single Judge has considered each and every aspect of the matter and the issues involved in minute details. The findings of the learned Single Judge in order to come to a conclusion that the orders of termination cannot be interfered with or were required to be upheld are cogent and justifiable. In order to avoid prolixity, we do not wish to reproduce the reasons for non-interference as supplied by the learned Single Judge.

9. 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. As observed earlier, the impugned judgment and order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons.

10. In such circumstances, the appeal and the application for stay are liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed.

I agree.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)