1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH . WRIT PETITION NO. 3678 OF 2008 Siddharth @ Pintu s/o. Pandurang Kamble. - - - - Petitioner versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Aurangabad. 3. Viki s/o. Pandurang Kamble, age 18 years, occ. student, R/o. Bhimnagar, Bhavsingpura, Aurangabad. 4. Ravi s/o. Pandurang Kamble, age 15 years, occ. student, r/o. as above u/g of mother Smt. Shobha w/o. Pandurang Kamble. 5. Sushma d/o. Pandurang Kamble, age 23 years, occ. household, R/o. Ambedkar Nagar, CIDCO, Aurangabad. - - - Respondents Mrs. Maya R. Jamdhade, Advocate for petitioner. Shri N. B. Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.1. Shri A. S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No.2. Shri M. K. Deshpande, Advocate for respondents Nos.3 and 4. 2 CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 6th August 2009 PER COURT : 1 The present petition involves disputed questions of fact. It appears that there is dispute between the petitioners on one hand and the respondents Nos.3 to 5 on the other hand. 2. Mrs. Jamdhade, leaned Counsel, submits that since the petitioner is the only legitimate child, he is only entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. 3. Perusal of the order dated 23-4-2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad would reveal that Succession Certifiate has been granted in favour of the petitioner so also the respondents Nos.3 to 5. 4. It is the specific contention of the respondent no.2 that unless all the legal heirs of the deceased give no objection certificate for appointment of the one of the members of the family, the said application cannot be considered. 3 5. This Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot settle the dispute between the petitioners and the respondents Nos.3 and 5. 6. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the petition and the same is rejected. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J. ) ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) pnk/367808