The Kolhapur Police, in an affidavit, also claimed that due to heavy rains and low visibility, it was difficult for their personnel to take appropriate action against persons indulging in violence and vandalism on the "encroachments" in the Vishalgad Fort area on July 14.

The police said five FIRs have been filed against more than 100 individuals, including former MP Chhatrapati Sambhajiraje, activists Ravindra Padwal and Banda Salunkhe, for their alleged involvement in the violent stir.

The affidavit was submitted to a bench of Justices B P Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla which was hearing applications filed by some residents of the area alleging authorities demolished several residential premises at the fort despite prohibitory orders.

The applications also alleged inaction by police to control mobs which allegedly ransacked their houses.

Advocate General Birendra Saraf told the bench that in keeping with a government circular no residential premises have been demolished amid the monsoon season.

The petitioners' advocate, S B Talekar, however, claimed that a few houses were demolished. The bench directed Talekar to file an affidavit stating this.

Last week, the bench had sought details from the police on what action it has taken against the protesters.

In the affidavit, the police said FIRs have been filed and a probe was on.

Emphasising that the police took all the necessary steps to prevent untoward incidents, the government affidavit claimed checkpoints were set up at different places to stop groups of people from marching towards the fort.

The police had refused permission for such marches, but it had information that certain groups of persons were still planning to walk towards the fort.

"There were heavy rains on July 14 as a result of which fog was formed. There was low visibility and it was difficult for authorities to take appropriate action. Still under this precarious condition, these authorities were doing their best to prevent the unwanted law and order situation," the affidavit claimed.

"On account of heavy rains, fog and low visibility, somehow few people managed to enter Gajapur village and caused destruction of some properties," it added.

An affidavit filed by the Directorate of Archaeology clarified that authorities have demolished only the commercial structures which were not protected by any order.

The petitioners claimed right-wing activists gathered at the base of Vishalgad Fort in defiance of prohibitory orders issued by the tehsildar (revenue department official) of Shahuwadi in Kolhapur district, banning assembly of people.

As per their pleas, the district administration had deployed police at the base of the structure to prevent "right-wing" activists from going to Vishalgad so that Muslim residents in the fort premises and their properties could be protected.

Despite prohibitory orders, the police allowed at least 100 protesters to climb the fort leading to "an atmosphere of chaos and lawlessness that prevailed in the village for almost two hours", the pleas alleged.

In 2023, the state Archaeology Department had issued notices to several persons, including some of the petitioners, to demolish their structures within the fort area.

The petitioners then moved the HC against the notices claiming the 300-acre Vishalgadh fort precinct was declared a protected monument only in 1999, while applicants have been residing there since much before that.

They had sought a stay on the demolition of the houses, shops or any other structures, including the Hazrat Peer Malik Rehan Dargah at Vishalgad.

The HC, in February 2023, stayed the notices and directed that no coercive or demolition action be taken against the said petitioners.

An anti-encroachment drive at Vishalgad Fort turned violent on July 14 as a mob hurled stones at police personnel and damaged properties, police had said earlier.

Vishalgad Fort holds profound significance in Maratha history as warrior king Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj escaped to it after being besieged at Panhala Fort, also located in present-day Kolhapur district, in 1660.