WP(C) 2696/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HN SARMA Heard Mr. G. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Deka, learned S tanding counsel, PWD. The petitioner was awarded the contracts of construction of Rura l Health Block Pooling Complex at Dhekiajuli under the National Rural Health Mis sion. The contract in question was allotted to the petitioner on 20.8.07 and 30. 4.08. It is pleaded by the that out of various reasons there was no satisfactor y progress of the work, more particularly for non-release of advance money by th e department. The petitioner was extended time by the authority for the completi on of the work but that was not materialize. Vide letter dated 19.3.10 the Execu tive Engineer, Tezpur Building Division intimated that the prayer of the petiti oner to complete the work as per programme submitted by him till completion i. e., on 8.6.10 is not acceptable by the department and the maximum time for comp letion of the work could be allowed upon to 8.5.10. According, acting on the sa me, the petitioner submitted a revised programme on 22nd March, 2010 and upon re ceipt of the same the executive engineer extended the time for completion of th e work up to 9.5.10. The petitioner has filed this application praying that in such a situation, the court should intervene in granting further time inasmuch a s the petitioner was not given interim payment by the department as required. It is contended by the petitioner that although the payment as r egard interim payment payable on the petitioner is kept in the bank and the majo r part of the same has not been released and accordingly he could not complete the work. Ms. Deka, learned Standing counsel, PWD draws my attention to Cl ause 24 of the agreement which the petitioner is entitled only a review of the decision rendered by the authority before the review committee within a period o f fourteen days and in the event of filing an application with the prayer that w ould be considered by that authority only. In the conspectus of the points raise d by the petitioner in this writ petition, there is little to be examined by the court in granting or not granting time but the same is rest in the hands of the executing authority. This court can interfere only when there is error appa rent in the decision making process. Part of the grievances of the petitioner ha ving been not redressed/considered by the department, merely the grievance for non-release of the fund by way of interim payment, the petitioner may approach the review boad. In the backdrop of what has been stated above, I propose to dis pose of this writ petition with the following order. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with the dire ction that the petitioner shall within a period of seven days from to-day shall file a review petition before the review board highlighting his grievance and up on receipt of the same, the review board shall proceed in deciding the grievance as expeditiously as possible and till such decision is taken, the work may not to be allotted to any other person. For further extension of time, the case of the petitioner shall also be considered by the review board in the event of fili ng such an application. With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.