Judgment : 1. The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 decision of a District Single Window Clearance Board. 2. The Government of India approved a project for setting of Common Facility Centre for Wood processing cluster at Puzhakkattiri Panchayat in Perinthalmanna Taluk with a project cost of Rs.228.90 lakhs. The Government of India assistance is Rs.160.23 lakhs and the State Government grant- in-aid would be Rs.45.78 lakhs. The balance of Rs.22.89 lakhs, being 10% of the project cost, is to be contributed by the 4th respondent, which is the special purpose vehicle approved by the Government for the purpose. On the basis of the aforesaid, the 4th respondent filed application before the Single Window Clearance Board constituted under the Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development Act, 1999. The Board noticed that clearance is required from the six authorities enumerated in Ext.P1 and forwarded the application to those authorities. The Board, thereafter, discussed the case and took into consideration the views of the District Town Planner, the Inspector of Factories and Boilers, the Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board, the District Medical Officer, the Grama Panchayat etc. and the different materials referred to in Ext.P1. The petitioner and one Shahul Hameed had objected to the grant of permit. They were also heard by the Board. Ultimately, for reasons stated in Ext.P1, the Board concluded that the project which is a Government sponsored one, can be given clearance and therefore, in exercise of power under Section 8 (2) of the Act, resolved to recommend to the Grama Panchayat to issue building permit and DLO licence subject to conditions as may be insisted by the Chief Town Planner, the Senior Environmental Engineer of PCB, the Director of Factories and Boilers, the District Medical Officer, Manjeri and the Assistant Divisional Officer of Fire and Rescue services, Malappuram, after obtaining permission from the Forest Department. The General Manger, District Industries Centre and Convener, Single Window Clearance Board is authorised to issue directions to the aforesaid agencies. 3. In challenging the aforesaid decision, the plea taken by the petitioner is that, having regard to the fact that it will be in violation of rules relating to regulation of sound pollution and also because it is in a densely populated area, the industry cannot be permitted to work. 3. In challenging the aforesaid decision, the plea taken by the petitioner is that, having regard to the fact that it will be in violation of rules relating to regulation of sound pollution and also because it is in a densely populated area, the industry cannot be permitted to work. It is also contended that the application has been considered and decision taken mechanically and the consequential actions of the PCB have also not been taken for assessing the environmental impact etc. 4. Advertence to the Act would show that the said legislation was brought into force in view of the constitutional provision as contained in Article 243 and other relevant provisions of the Constitution, whereby it has become necessary to administer the affairs of industrial townships and also for giving single window clearance for industrial undertakings which have to take licence, clearance, certificate etc. from various authorities. Section 4 of the Act provides the constitution of the District Board. It takes in all such authorities as are necessary to ensure that there is a meeting of minds for the purpose of speedy consideration of requests for licence, clearance and certificate. Looking at Section 11(1) of the Act, it can be seen that an appeal is provided against the decision of the District Board only if clearance, licence or certificate as applied for is refused or has been recommended with modification. Aggrieved persons who could file an appeal under that provision are essentially those to whom clearance, licence or certificate is refused or whose application has been recommended with modification. Therefore, there is clear statutory exclusion of any appeal by any person objecting to the grant of clearance, licence or certificate. There is a salutary reason also for this. If the very intention is to provide speedy issue of licence, clearance and certificate and to make special provision to promote the orderly establishment, rapid growth and development of the industries in the State as is envisaged in the preamble of the Act, it is inconceivable that different persons be permitted to scout different jurisdictions and challenge the action taken under the Act. With that view, it has to be held that no appeal could have been filed by the petitioner against the impugned decision. With that view, it has to be held that no appeal could have been filed by the petitioner against the impugned decision. If that be so, the conspectus of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for judicial review of an order of the District Board has to be confined to ensure that in rendering the impugned decision, the Board has not usurped the jurisdictional bounds and has not issued the order malafide or on a ground referable to arbitrary and perverse or colorable exercise of power, resulting in fraud on powers. 5. On facts, no such grounds are made out in this writ petition. This finding is inexcusable, particularly because the objections of the petitioner on the question of sound pollution have been addressed and considered in Ext.P1. It needs to be noted that the Board heard the petitioners and recorded their apprehension regarding water pollution, sound pollution, air pollution etc. The Executive Engineer, PCB had clarified to the Board that the project comes in Orange category as per their categorisation for sound management and the applicant, having agreed to all conditions stipulated in giving the consent from PCB, the application for consent to establishment has been recommended to the Senior Executive Engineer of PCB. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, the writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.