B. Sasi Mahendran, J.

Petitioners have instituted this action to obtain the following reliefs prayed for in the prayer of the Petition dated 13th December 2023,

a. Issue Notice of this application on the Respondents;

b. Grant and issue a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned decision of the 1st Respondent contained in the Board Resolution dated 26th September 2023 depicted in the Government Gazette marked P18(b) and the daily newspapers compendiously marked P18(c) to the Petition;

c. Grant and issue a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned Notice of Sale contained in the letter dated 5th December 2023 marked P21 and/or the Notice of Sale contained in the Government Gazette dated 1st December 2023 marked P21(a) and/or the Notice of Sale published in the Daily FT Newspaper dated 5th December 2023 marked P21(b) to the Petition;

d. Grant an interim order pending the hearing and determination of the Petitioner's application staying the operation of the decision of the 01st Respondent contained in the Board Resolution dated 26th September 2023 depicted in the Government Gazette marked P18(b) and the daily newspapers compendiously marked P18(c) to the Petition;

e. Grant an interim order pending the hearing and determination of the Petitioner's application restraining the 1st and/or 2nd Respondents and/or their servants and/or their agents and/or all those acting under them from taking any steps whatsoever to conduct the auction described in the Notices of Sale marked P21 dated 05th December 2023 and/or P21(a) dated 1st December 2023 and/or P21(b) dated 05th December 2023 to the Petition;

f. Grant costs; and

g. Such other relief that Your Lordships Court shall seem meet.

When the matter came up on 1st February 2024, Court directed to dispose the matter by way of Written Submissions.

Facts of the Case

According to the Petitioners, as stated in their Written Submission, the 2nd petitioner has obtained several credit facilities from the 1st Respondent Bank by executing several mortgage bonds and has failed to pay the due amounts owing to the credit facilities obtained.

According to the Petition, the 1st Petitioner who is a Director of the Company has made the allegation that the 2nd Respondent did not receive the Notice as per Section 8 of the Recovery of Loans by Banks ( Special Provisions) Act No.4 of 1990.

Section 8 of the Recovery of Loans by Banks ( Special Provisions) Act No.4 of 1990 stipulates:

Notice of every resolution under section 4 authorizing the sale of any property shall be published in the Gazette and in at least three daily newspapers, in the Sinhala, Tamil and English languages and copies of such notice shall be dispatched to the borrower, if he is alive, and to every person who has, in respect of that property, registered his address as required by section 2 and if that property consists of the interest of a lessee under a lease from the State, to the Land Commissioner. (emphasis added)

Since the 2^nd Petitioner did not receive the notice of Parate Execution they were unable to act according to Section 10 of Recovery of Loans by Banks ( Special Provisions) Act No.4 of 1990 to prevent the said Parate Execution.

On the other hand, the Respondent as per their Objections and Written Submissions has stated that they have sent the notice and Board Resolution decision to the 2nd Petitioners. Also by motion dated 13th February 2024 they have filed the relevant documents to prove that on 17th October 2023 they have sent the notice to the Respondents.

The question before us is that whether notice was sent to the 2nd Petitioner. It appears to this Court that the particular issue that whether the 2nd Petitioner has received the Notice or not could not be decided by this Court. We are mindful that when the facts are disputed Courts are reluctant to exercise the Writ Jurisdiction, as the disputed facts should be established in the Original Courts.

A.S. CHOUDRI in his book on the Law of Writs