Case at a Glance
Residents of Ward No. 2, Chandannagar complained that hammering, cutting and assembly work at a small LED light-board unit next to their house was disturbing the neighbourhood. The West Bengal Pollution Control Board had measured 68.34 dB(A) at the complainants’ house during hammering, against a residential daytime limit of 55 dB(A), and in August 2025 had ordered remedial steps. Holding that freedom from noise pollution is part of the right to life under Article 21, the NGT rejected the unit’s claim that its work creates no noise and directed it to seal wall gaps, install acoustic insulation, replace its makeshift shed with a permanent structure and not operate between 7 p.m. and 9 a.m., with the Board to verify compliance and act, including by closure, if needed.
The applicants, residents of Ward No. 2 of the Chandannagar Municipal Corporation in Hooghly, complained about a small LED light-board manufacturing unit near their house and a primary school. They alleged that it operated without permissions, that hammering and related work exceeded permissible residential noise limits, and that complaints to the Mayor, the Municipal Commissioner, the Pollution Control Board and the police had produced no effective action. The unit is classified in the ‘White’ category, for which no consent to establish or operate is required.
On inspection on 19 May 2025, the West Bengal Pollution Control Board recorded 84.90 dB(A) inside the unit and 68.34 dB(A) at the complainants’ house during hammering, against ambient noise of 40 dB(A) and a permissible residential daytime limit of 55 dB(A). On 12 August 2025 it directed the unit to stop noisy work under the makeshift shed without adequate controls, close openings facing the complainants and operate only between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. A Joint Committee appointed by the Tribunal found on 21 May 2026 that the bamboo-and-polycarbonate shed remained makeshift, gaps of about half a metre remained in the side walls including towards the complainants, and there was no acoustic insulation. The unit’s proprietor denied any noise pollution and called the application mala fide.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a small workshop in a residential locality, even one exempt from pollution consents, be compelled to control noise that exceeds residential limits at a neighbour’s house?
Noise beyond one’s premises is an Article 21 issue
The Tribunal traced the legal framework: noise was added to the definition of ‘air pollutant’ in the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 by the 1987 amendment, and the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 fix residential limits of 55 dB(A) by day and 45 dB(A) at night. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in In Re: Noise Pollution – Implementation of the Laws for Restricting Use of Loudspeakers and High Volume Producing Sound Systems, (2005) 07 SC CK 0017, it treated freedom from noise pollution as part of the right to life and dignity under Article 21, and noted the Supreme Court’s concerns about weak enforcement, lack of equipment and poor public awareness.
On the facts, the Tribunal refused to accept the unit’s claim that the “question of noise pollution does not arise”, given the Board’s 2025 measurements, and noted that no laboratory report showing noise within limits had been produced. The unit had admitted complying with the timing and some noise-control directions but had not clearly addressed others, especially closing the openings. The Tribunal therefore accepted the Board’s observations and the Joint Committee’s recommendations as the basis for its directions.
What the Court Actually Held
- Freedom from noise pollution is part of the right to life under Article 21; noise from a workshop that exceeds residential limits at a neighbour’s house must be controlled, even if the unit needs no pollution consent.
- The unit must comply with the Board’s order of 12 August 2025 and the Joint Committee’s recommendations — seal all wall gaps, add acoustic insulation, replace the bamboo shed with a permanent brick or concrete structure and not operate between 7 p.m. and 9 a.m. — and file a compliance report with the Board within three months.
- The Pollution Control Board must verify compliance and, in case of non-compliance or other violations, take action including closure after hearing both sides; its Member Secretary must file an action-taken report within six months.
- No compensation was awarded; parties bear their own costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Noise from small workshops in mixed residential areas is one of the most common neighbourhood grievances; the order shows the NGT will intervene.
- It clarifies that a ‘White’ category exemption from consents does not exempt a unit from noise limits.
- Pollution boards are made accountable for verifying compliance, not just issuing directions.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Residents
- Ask the State Pollution Control Board to measure noise levels at your premises; recorded dB(A) readings were decisive here.
- Keep a record of complaints to the municipality, police and Board; documented inaction supports an NGT application.
For Counsel and Units
- A bare denial of noise will not survive official measurements; produce laboratory noise reports if contesting.
- Structural measures — sealing openings, acoustic insulation, permanent enclosures — and strict working hours are the likely remedies.
Key Takeaways
- Residential daytime noise limit is 55 dB(A), night-time 45 dB(A).
- A small unit exempt from consents is still bound by noise rules.
- The NGT ordered soundproofing, sealing of gaps, a permanent structure and no work from 7 p.m. to 9 a.m.
- The State Board must verify compliance and may order closure for violations.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the permissible noise level in a residential area?
Under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, as noted by the Tribunal, it is 55 dB(A) during the day and 45 dB(A) at night.
Can I approach the NGT about noise from a neighbour’s workshop?
In this case residents did, after complaints to local authorities failed. The NGT treated noise pollution as an Article 21 issue and issued directions to the unit and the Pollution Control Board.
Was the workshop shut down?
No. It was directed to take noise-control measures and follow working hours; the Board can take action, including closure, if it does not comply.
Conclusion
The NGT’s order turns a long-running neighbourhood complaint into enforceable directions, backed by measured noise levels and a clear compliance timeline. It also puts the burden on the Pollution Control Board to follow through.
Practical takeaway: If noise from a nearby unit disturbs your home, get the State Pollution Control Board to measure it — readings above 55 dB(A) by day can support structural and timing directions from the NGT.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com