Judgment : Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Respondents six onwards in the writ petition impleaded so, at their instance, in the writ petition are the appellants. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Senior Government Pleader. 3. Going by the counter affidavit of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Thiruvananthapuram, the 3rd respondent in the writ petition, the work of construction of sea wall, which is attempted to be subjected to these writ proceedings, is one founded and being carried on in terms of the report of the Department of Ocean Engineering, IIT, Madras, prescribing measures to be adopted along the Kerala Coast. As discernible from paragraph 3 of that counter affidavit, the stretch also takes in areas which are critically sensitive in national interest, including the presence of ISRO installations. The alignment was approved by the Joint Director, Coastal Engineering Field Studies, Thrissur. The project is stated to be included in the 1st and 2nd phases of the 13th Finance Commission awards. Paragraph 4 of that counter affidavit gives vivid details, including the provision of the 13th Finance Commission funds for central assistance at Veli Estuary. 4. The writ petitioner sought relief to compel the contractor to carry out the work. The writ petition was instituted on the premise that the work is held up as there were some oral directions by the officers concerned, not to carry on with the work. 5. What we see through, ultimately, at this point of time, is that there are two rival groups, one holding on to the name, Valiya Veli Matsyia Thozhilali Vikasana Kshema Sahakarana Sangham and the other claiming to be the registered one, accusing each other as a splinter split away bunch. 6. While this appeal is by one among those groups, the fact of the matter remains that when technical inputs had been considered and Government had awarded one or more contracts, it is the bounden duty of Government to have the works completed within the scheduled time limit, more specifically because of the expenditure of public funds, in particular, 13th Finance Commission funds which have been extended to ensure support to State projects. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to Exhibit R6 (d). That is a report of 1997 by the Scientists of the Centre for Earth Science Studies. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to Exhibit R6 (d). That is a report of 1997 by the Scientists of the Centre for Earth Science Studies. We are not equipped to make any comparative assessment or evaluation of that report with the advice of the IIT, Madras and the Government Engineers which have been adopted by the Government. That is not a matter for judicial review. 8. In India, many, whether well-informed and competent, or not, desire to cough up individual or collective ideas. When this happens in relation to matters of critical importance in governance of this massive polity, the voiceless among the masses cannot await the conflicts amongst those who profess to espouse their cause. 9. What the learned single Judge has ultimately done is merely to record that the Government and its officers have undertaken to ensure that the work would be completed in a time bound manner. The writ petition was thereby closed. With the aforesaid, we do not find any legal or factual infirmity, or jurisdictional error, in the impugned judgment, warranting interference in this intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act. In the result, this writ appeal fails and it is dismissed in limine.