JUDGMENT By Court -Challenging the order dated 5th July, 2013 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1748 of 2013, the appellant has approached this Court by filing the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The appellant is the union of Contractors working in Kolhan region. A writ petition was filed, challenging insertion of Clause-33 in the Notice Inviting Tender issued by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Saraikela-Kharsawan. In an earlier writ proceeding i.e. W.P.(C) No.2285 of 2007, Clause nos.9,13 and 14 of the Notice Inviting Tender(NIT) was challenged. In the meantime Clause 33 was incorporated in the Notice Inviting Tender and therefore, an Interlocutory Application was filed, seeking to challenge Clause 33 in the Notice Inviting Tender. The said I.A. No.3045 of 2012 was disposed of with liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate forum. Thereafter, the Union preferred W.P. (C) No.1748 of 2013, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding that since it appears to be a policy decision of the State Government, the Clause fixing the defect liability for a period of three years for execution of work cannot be interfered with by the Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that it was decided by the respondents on 11.2.2008 that the provisions as contained in P.W.D. Code would be made applicable and enforced in the Notice Inviting Tender. It is further submitted that P.W.D. Code has been formulated in exercise of the power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, insertion of Clause 33 in the Notice Inviting Tender by an executive order cannot be sustained in law. 4. We have heard Mr.Sunil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the documents on record. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that by an executive order Clause 33 has been inserted in the Notice Inviting Tender, we do not find any material or any document placed on record by the appellant, which would indicate that Clause-33 has been inserted in the Notice Inviting Tender by an executive order. Moreover, fixing the defect liability for a period of three years, which is a policy of the State Government to which a Writ Court generally would not interfere. It is also settled that in the matters which involve technical, scientific or economic expertise, generally the Court would not interfere. 5. Moreover, fixing the defect liability for a period of three years, which is a policy of the State Government to which a Writ Court generally would not interfere. It is also settled that in the matters which involve technical, scientific or economic expertise, generally the Court would not interfere. 5. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that in the matter of policies, the Court should refrain from interfering with the decision of the executive. Moreover, it has also been found by the learned Single Judge that the Clause fixing the defect liability period of three years for execution of work is not unreasonable or irrational, rather it is in public interest intending to keep the newly constructed road in proper order after completion of the project. 6. We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, warranting any interference. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant-Union has preferred some representation before the Government. It is open for the appellant to pursue its remedy before the authority concerned. 7. This Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.