S. U. B. Karalliyadde, J.

This Order pertains to the issuance of formal notices of this Writ Application on the Respondents. The Petitioner has obtained a leasing facility from the Seylan Bank PLC, and he had made a complaint to the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, the 1^st Respondent, in the year 2022 regarding a commission charged for his leasing facility being paid to a third party by the Seylan Bank PLC. The position of the Petitioner is that the Seylan Bank PLC had fraudulently added an additional interest at the rate of 1% to the interest rate agreed upon for the leasing facility without his consent. By producing a letter dated 13.05.2022 marked as P1, the Petitioner argues that the 1^st Respondent had issued a ruling on the Seylan Bank PLC to refund the amount charged at the added rate of 1% to be paid back to the Petitioner and stop charging it thereafter. The Petitioner states that he has obtained information through the Right to Information Act, and came to know that the Seylan Bank PLC has agreed to implement the ruling said to have been issued against it by the 1^st Respondent on 13.05.2022, marked as P1. Under such circumstances, the Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking, inter alia, a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st Respondent to implement what he is interpreting as a ruling dated 13.05.2022 marked as P1.

When this matter was taken up for support, the learned State Counsel appearing for the Respondents made objections as to the maintainability of this Application. The learned State Counsel argued that the Petitioner has failed to satisfy that the Respondents owe a statutory duty towards the Petitioner to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The learned State Counsel submitted that the 1^st Respondent has considered the allegation levelled by the Petitioner against the Seylan Bank PLC, merely requested to resolve the issue amicably between the parties, but not issued any ruling on the Seylan Bank PLC as stated by the Petitioner.

The Petitioner’s contention is that the 1^st Respondent has the power to implement the ruling marked as P1 by the powers vested in the 1^st Respondent by virtue of Section 30(1) of the Monetary Law Act, No. 58 of 1949 and Section 45 of the Banking Act, No. 30 of 1988. Section 30(1) of the Monetary Law Act refers to the power of the Monetary Board to suspend or restrict the business of a banking institution in a situation where the institution is insolvent or likely to become unable to meet the demands of its depositors, or where its continuance in business is likely to involve loss to its depositors or creditors. The matter at hand is a situation where a customer of a bank has complained to the 1^st Respondent. Therefore, Section 30(1) of the Monetary Law Act has no application to the instant Application. Under Section 45 of the Banking Act, if a licensed commercial bank engages in unsafe or unsound practices that could endanger depositors or make the bank unable to meet its obligations or violates or fails to comply with banking laws, regulations, or directions, the Director of Bank Supervision (the head of the Department of Bank Supervision of the 1^st Respondent established under Section 28 of the Monetary Law Act) can order the bank to stop the improper practice or violation, comply with the law or regulations, and to take corrective action to remedy the situation. For the reasons that follow, this Court is of the view that Section 45 has no application to the matter at hand.

The Financial Consumer Relations Department (FCRD) has been established under the provisions of Section 33 of the Monetary Law Act to handle external complaints from financial consumers of the entities (licensed Commercial Banks, licensed Specialised Banks, licensed Finance Companies, specialized Leasing Companies, authorized Primary Dealers, participants of Payments and Settlement Systems (other than financial institutions)) regulated by the 1^st Respondent. Upon receiving a complaint, the FCRD assesses the com