JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. The appellants have approached this Court impugning the interim order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 07.04.2025, in which their request for a direction to the 4 th respondent, to “carryout the work as mentioned in paragraph 7 of their counter affidavit” has been declined. 2. For the purpose of clarity, we reproduce Paragraph 7 of the Counter affidavit ut infra: “7. It is respectfully submitted that the estimate is an outline of the work to be executed and during execution, there may be changes to the estimate, which will be approved by the competent officer. The contention of the petitioner that work on the Vattakandam road has not commenced to make an unlawful profit is untenable and factually incorrect. The Constituency Monitoring Team meeting is held to monitor the progress of PWD works within the constituency and to discuss any issues or problems faced during the execution of projects. The complaint received through the CMO portal/Chief Engineer was also discussed in this meeting. The Vattakandam road is at a slightly lower level than the approach road of Pulikattukadavu Bridge, and the Puthusseri road is at a very low level. To ensure a smooth connection of both roads with the approach road, 20.00 m of the Vattakandam road and 70.00 m of the Puthusseri road will be improved.” (sic) 3. Going by the interim order sought, the appellants thus seek that the work for the construction of the approach road be ordered to be completed at the earliest. But, as the learned Single Judge has rightly held, such an order could not have been possible, when the writ petition is pending. 4. In the afore circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Needless to say, all liberty of the appellants, to invoke their available remedies and to urge every contention before the learned Single Bench, when the writ petition is heard and disposed of, are reserved. 5. This appeal is thus closed.