JUDGMENT S. B. Shukre, J. - Heard learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners, learned counsel for the Corporation and learned AGP for Mumbai Police. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and the Petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. This Petition has been filed with the grievance that inspite of permission granted by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 5th January, 2023 passed in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21642 of 2022, to the Petitioners to remove their articles, equipments and belongings from the structure in question within a week, the Petitioners could not remove their articles from the structure in question and the sole reason for the failure of the Petitioners to do so is the stubborn resistance put up by some bouncers masquerading as security guards deployed by somebody interested in the property whose name is not known to the Petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the Corporation, on instructions received by her from the concerned officer submits that demolition of the structure in question has not yet been started by the Corporation as now the Corporation is in the process of appointing a new contractor for the demolition work and it is likely to take some more time. She further submits on instructions that the officers of the Corporation are not aware of the same any obstructions created by anybody. About the presence of unknown persons within the premises of structure in question, she submits on instructions that the Corporation from its side has never prohibited or restrained the Petitioners from removing their articles in question and on the contrary the Corporation has recommended to the Police that necessary protection be granted to the Petitioners for the purpose of removal of their articles. 5. Mumbai Police represented by Commissioner of Police and his subordinate officers is arrayed as a party Respondents, through various Respondents. Learned AGP appearing for Mumbai Police submits that some time be granted to him, to enable him to take instructions from the officers. 6. However, considering the nature of the grievance of the Petitioners and the timeline set by the Apex Court, it is not possible for this Court to wait for the instructions of the Mumbai Police. Learned AGP appearing for Mumbai Police submits that some time be granted to him, to enable him to take instructions from the officers. 6. However, considering the nature of the grievance of the Petitioners and the timeline set by the Apex Court, it is not possible for this Court to wait for the instructions of the Mumbai Police. Even otherwise, there are hardly any instructions which can be expected to be coming from Mumbai Police in a matter like this as all that Mumbai Police has to do in this case is to provide adequate police bandobast and protection to the Petitioners to remove their articles in terms of the permission granted by the Supreme Court, though same can be done by Mumbai Police by levying permissible charges from the Petitioners. 7. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the purpose of this Petition can be served by issuing necessary directions to the Corporation and also to Mumbai Police. 8. In view of above, the Petition is partly allowed, Respondent No.1 is directed to depute a responsible officer to the site where structure in question is situated on 28th January, 2023 at 11.30 p.m., who shall be accompanied by the Petitioners or their authorized representatives and, the Petitioners or their authorized representatives shall be permitted to remove the articles etc. in terms of the permission granted by the Supreme Court. 9. We direct the Petitioners to prepare a panchanama and inventory of the articles in the presence of authorized representative of Respondent No.1 which shall be signed by the Petitioners or their authorized representatives and also by the authorized representative of the Corporation. A copy of the panchanama and inventory shall be handed over to the authorized representative of the Corporation. 10. We direct Respondent No.3 to issue necessary orders to his concerned officers for providing adequate police bandobast and protection to the Petitioners on 28th January, 2023 from 11 a.m. and onwards till the time the articles are removed from the structure in question, panchanama is duly prepared and the Petitioners and authorized representative of Respondent No.1 leave the premises safely. 11. We further direct Respondent No.3 to issue necessary instructions to his concerned officers for registering appropriate offences against any such person or persons who would be found to be obstructing or resisting the process of removal of articles etc. 11. We further direct Respondent No.3 to issue necessary instructions to his concerned officers for registering appropriate offences against any such person or persons who would be found to be obstructing or resisting the process of removal of articles etc. by the Petitioners in terms of the order of the Supreme Court, treating the same to be obstruction made to a public servant in discharge of his public functions apart from any other offences, if any, and take the FIR to its logical end. 12. We further direct Respondent No.3 to instruct his concerned officers to inform the Petitioners about the charges to be paid by them for providing of police bandobast and protection latest by 2.00 p.m. of 19th January, 2023 to enable the Petitioners to deposit the same forthwith thereafter. 13. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. 14. The Petition is disposed of.