The petitioner, Mohammad Sayed Nagori Rizvi, a resident of Bandra, alleged that his shop had been demolished on December 16, 2016, without following due process of law. The Bombay High Court recently allowed a person, who suffers from 100 per cent hearing disability, to reconstruct his fast food shop in Bandra that had been demolished by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) immediately after serving him a notice regarding trade activities not being permitted on pavements without a licence. The petitioner, Mohammad Sayed Nagori Rizvi, a resident of Bandra, alleged that his shop had been demolished on December 16, 2016, without following due process of law. A division bench of Justice A S Oka and Justice R I Chagla said: “… we find that the Respondent No.1-Corporation – has demolished the subject premises (shop) without notice and/or granting an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, particularly considering that the petitioner was suffering from 100 per cent hearing disability and the business being his only source of livelihood, it was necessary for the Respondent No 1 – Corporation – to grant a hearing to the petitioner and pass order of demolition prior to taking the impugned action.” The petitioner said the shop measuring 9.24 sqm is located at Abdul House, Bandra, and was originally on a private land. He bought the shop and started his business with the name Siddhivinayak Fast Food. He said, in September 2016, BMC officials visited the shop and told him it was unauthorised and would be demolished. The BMC issued a notice to him in December 2016 saying trade activity is not permitted on the footpath without a licence. The next day, a team from the municipality demolished the shop. According to the petitioner, it was done without following due process of law and despite an order of injunction passed by the City Civil Court restraining the civic body from demolishing the shop. Rizvi’s lawyer told the court that the petitioner is a disabled person and the business was his only source of livelihood. The lawyer also told the court that the shop was not obstructing pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The bench said: “Thus, in our view, the action of demolition carried out by the Respondent No.1 – Corporation – in violation of the principles of natural justice was illegal as the facts of the case did not warrant taking of action without prior notice.” The court said it will be open for the petitioner to reconstruct the shop in the same area at his own cost, without claiming any equity. The court also told the petitioner that it will be open for him to make a representation to the municipality for seeking compensation for the reconstructed premises by providing all details.