Judgment :- 1. Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the 2nd Respondent in Na.Ka.No.4287/05/A1 dated 110. 2005 and to direct the 1st Respondent to recognize the Petitioner as Hereditary Trustee of Arulmighu Gramadevathai and Anaikulathamman Thirukoil, Salavanpettai, Vellore. 2. Factual background in nutshell are as follows:- (i) Arulmighu Gramadevathai and Anaikulathamman Thirukoil, Salavanpetti, Vellore is situated at Kosapettai. The said temple is a public one and it is situated within the jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE Admn. Department, Vellore. Temple has got its own immovable property and Inam granted as Devadayam in favour of the temple for the upkeep and maintenance of the temples and the temples are being maintained from and out of the income from Hundial collection. Office of the trusteeship has been declared as Hereditary by Dy. Commissioner, HR&CE Admn. Department, Chennai in O.A.No.92/1978 dated 5. 1979 u/s.63(b) of HR&CE Act (for short Act). Petitioner and his brother Ramalingam were declared as Hereditary Trustees. (ii) Exercising powers under Sec.49 of the Act, 2nd Respondent appointed the 3rd Respondent (subsequently impleaded)-Executive Officer of Arulmigu Kothandaramaswamy Thirukoil Rangapuram, Vellore as Fit Person of Arulmigu Gramadevathai and Anaikulathamman Thirukoil, Vellore in his Proceedings dated 110. 2005 and directed the 3rd Respondent/Fit Person to take charge of the temple. (iii) Case of the Petitioner is that by virtue of order in O.A.No.92/1978, Petitioner became entitled to the management of the temple as sole Trustee of Anaikulathamman Thirukoil. According to the Petitioner, in April 2001, two persons approached him and sought permission to carry out certain repairs in the Gopuram of the temple for which, Petitioner permitted them in the larger interest of the temple and devotees. (iv) Further case of the Petitioner is that those two persons have shown themselves as Arulmigu Anaikulathamman Thirupani and Executive Committee and printed pamphlets and that they are making arrangements to conduct Kumbabisekam of the temple and collecting donations from the residents of the locality and from others. Petitioner has also filed civil suit in O.S.No.512/2001 on the file of District Munsif Court, Vellore. (v) It is the further case of the Petitioner that only during trial, he came to know about the impugned order dated 110. 2005 passed by the 2nd Respondent appointing Thakkar/Fit Person for Arulmigu Gramadevathai and Anaikulathamman Thirukoil. According to the Petitioner, no notice was served upon him before passing the impugned order. (v) It is the further case of the Petitioner that only during trial, he came to know about the impugned order dated 110. 2005 passed by the 2nd Respondent appointing Thakkar/Fit Person for Arulmigu Gramadevathai and Anaikulathamman Thirukoil. According to the Petitioner, no notice was served upon him before passing the impugned order. Impugned order is passed on the report of Inspector of HR &CE dated 29. 2005 and 110. 2005 and absolutely there is no whisper about the alleged inspection preceded by notice. Denying that he was out of station from the village, Petitioner challenges the impugned order mainly on the ground of absence of issuance of notice before appointing Thakkar/Fit Person. 3. Respondents have filed counter stating that general public have complained that Petitioner has left the village without maintaining the temple and the temple is now in the hands of general public. According to the Respondents, to verify the correctness of the complaint, Assistant Commissioner has directed the local Inspector, HR&CE, Vellore to enquire and submit a report. Temples were also inspected by the Assistant Commissioner and after having ascertained the facts and felt the need to appoint proper person in the place of Trustees for day-to-day maintenance and administration of the temple and properties, Fit Person was appointed on 110. 2005. 4. Challenging the impugned order, Mr. A.R. Suresh, learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that Petitioner was not given any opportunity before passing the impugned order appointing Fit Person. It was further submitted that when the Petitioner was appointed as Hereditary Trustee in O.A.No.92/1978, before appointing Fit Person opportunity ought to have been given to the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that notwithstanding the alternative remedy available by way of appeal, Writ Petition is maintainable in view of violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Mr. T. Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent has submitted that upon receipt of complaints from the general public that the Petitioner is not maintaining the temple and calling for report from the Inspector, HR &CE, in the interest of the temple, 2nd Respondent exercising powers u/s.49 of the Act, appointed the 3rd Respondent as Fit Person and the impugned order is in accordance with the provisions of Act. Learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent further contended that as against the impugned order, appeal remedy is available to the Petitioner under Sec.69(1) of the Act and therefore, Writ Petition is not maintainable. 6. At the time when the Writ Petition was filed, Petitioner has not impleaded the Fit Person/Executive Officer. By filing impleading Petition in W.P.M.P.Nos.6012 & 6013/2006, Fit Person was impleaded as 3rd Respondent. 7. Mr. S.N. Ravichandran, learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent has submitted that Fit Person has taken charge even on 110. 2005 and suppressing the same, Petitioner has filed Writ Petition and obtained interim stay on 04.04.2006. Learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent mainly contended that Petitioner having suppressed the material fact is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Art. 226 of Constitution of India. 8. Petitioner and his brother Ramalingam were appointed as Hereditary Trustees as per the order dated 05. 1979 in O.A.No.92/1978. Observing that the management of Sri Anaikulathamman, Padavettamman and Vinayagar temples are in the family of Petitioner for more than three decades, Dy. Commissioner has passed the order appointing the Petitioner and his brother Ramalingam as Hereditary Trustees. 9. From the averments in the counter-affidavit and from the submissions of the learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent, it comes to be known that Petitioner had not taken care of the temple and therefore, villagers themselves have formed a committee and general public were maintaining the temple. On receipt of the complaint from the villagers to verify correctness of complaint, 2nd Respondent has directed the local Inspector of HR & CE, Vellore to enquire and submit a report. 2nd Respondent has also inspected the temple and having ascertained the facts, on being satisfied about the need to appoint Fit Person for day-to-day maintenance and administration of the temple, 2nd Respondent has passed the impugned order on 110. 2005. 3rd Respondent/Fit Person has also assumed charge and taken inventory of various items in the possession of Poosari in respect of main temple and also sub temples on 110. 2005. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the 3d Respondent, Writ Petition has been filed suppressing the material facts that Fit Person has taken charge on 110. 2005 and obtained interim stay. 10. Under Sec.69 (1) of the Act any person aggrieved by any order passed by the Dy. 2005. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the 3d Respondent, Writ Petition has been filed suppressing the material facts that Fit Person has taken charge on 110. 2005 and obtained interim stay. 10. Under Sec.69 (1) of the Act any person aggrieved by any order passed by the Dy. Commissioner, appeal lies to the Commissioner within 60 days from the date of publication of the order or of the receipt thereof. Sec. 69(2) of the Act deals with suo motu power of the Commissioner to revise the orders passed by the Joint Commissioner or Dy. Commissioner. When efficacious alternative remedy is available, Petitioner cannot invoke Art. 226 of Constitution of India. 11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that Petitioner was not served with notice before passing the impugned order and since there was violation of principles of natural justice, Writ Petition is maintainable. This contention does not merit acceptance. Principles of natural justice had undergone sea change. After the decisions of the Supreme Court in S.K. Sharmas case [ (1996) 3 SCC 364 ] and in Rajendra Singhs case [ (1996) 5 SCC 460 ], principles of natural justice is not applied in vaccum without reference to relevant facts and circumstances of each case. Principles of natural justice cannot be put into a strait-jacket formula. 12. It is alleged that the Petitioner was not available in the village and he was discharging his duties and that village public are performing the daily poojas. When it is averred that Petitioner was not available in the village, Writ Petition cannot be entertained on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 13. Under Sec.69(1) of the Act as against the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner appeal lies before the Commissioner. Only in an appeal, the disputed question of fact could be gone into by the Commissioner. 14. When efficacious alternative remedy is available for the Writ Petitioner, the Petitioner cannot invoke Art. 226 of Constitution of India. .15. In (2005) 8 SCC 264 [U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey], Supreme Court has held as under:- ."In a catena of decisions it has been held that Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution should not be entertained when the statutory remedy is available under the Act, unless exceptional circumstances are made out." 16. .15. In (2005) 8 SCC 264 [U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey], Supreme Court has held as under:- ."In a catena of decisions it has been held that Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution should not be entertained when the statutory remedy is available under the Act, unless exceptional circumstances are made out." 16. In (2004) 4 SCC 268 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 637 [U.P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh], Supreme Court has held as follows:- "When the dispute relates to enforcement of a right or obligation under the statute and specific remedy is, therefore, provided under the statute, the High Court should not deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure. The person who insists upon such remedy can avail of the process as provided under the statute. To the same effect are the decisions in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke (1976) 1 SCC 496 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 70; Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant [ (1995) 5 SCC 75 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1207 : (1995) 31 ATC 110 ]; Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam v. Municipal Corpn. Of Ahmedabad [ (2002) 2 SCC 542 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 317; and Scooters India v. Vijai E.V. Eldred [ (1998) 6 SCC 549 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1611 ]." In view of the availability of efficacious alternative remedy by way of statutory appeal under Sec.69 (1) of the Act, Writ Petition is not maintainable. 17. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. It is open to the Petitioner to seek appropriate statutory remedy as available under the Act, if he is so advised. Consequently, WP.M.P.No.4970/2006 is dismissed and WV.MP.No.1947/2006 is allowed and the interim stay granted on 04. 2006 is vacated.