IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application for mandates in the nature of Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition under and in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Court of Appeal Case No.

CA/WRT/0573/2024 Mass Milhan Sadar No.161/11/1, Babanoor Garden, Padiliyathuduwa Road, Hunupitiya, Wattala.

Petitioner Vs.

1. Moulavi M. R. M. Naiser Quazi for Panadura, Panadura Judicial Division, No.259, Hijra Mawatha, Henamulla, Panadura.

2. Gnei Wazeela Ramdeen No.393, Gangarama Road, Alubomulla.

Respondents Before: M. T. MOHAMMED LAFFAR, J.

Counsel: Yoosuf Nasar with M. N. M. Israth, instructed by Eksith Madawala for the Petitioner.

Ilham Nizam, instructed by Inusha Karunarathne for the

1^st Respondents.

Hafeel Farisz with Shannon Tillekeratne and Shermina Bangsajayah for the 2nd Respondent.

Supported on: 13.09.2024 Decided on: 21.10.2024 MOHAMMED LAFFAR, J.

The Petitioner is seeking, inter alia, a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the 1st Respondent (Quazi for Panadura) dated 10.08.2024, in case number 2490-FD-2024-PND, and a Writ of Prohibition against the 1st Respondent, prohibiting him from registering the divorce.

I have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner in support of this application, as well as the learned counsel for the Respondents.

The Petitioner married the 2nd Respondent in accordance with the provisions of the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act (as amended). The 2nd Respondent (Wife) initiated proceedings before the learned Quazi of Panadura for a Fasah divorce against the Petitioner (Husband). The Petitioner invoked the revisionary jurisdiction of the Board of Quazis through application No. 64-24- R-CMB, and on 03.08.2024, the Board issued a stay order preventing any further proceedings before the 1st Respondent. However, on 10.08.2024, the 1st Respondent issued an order granting a divorce in favor of the

2nd Respondent.

Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner has already filed an appeal before the Board of Quazis under case No. 78-24-A-CMB, seeking, inter alia, to set aside the order dated 10.08.2024 made by the 1st Respondent, and to obtain an order directing the 1st Respondent not to register the said divorce until the final determination of the appeal.

It is pertinent to note that, under the provisions of the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act (as amended), any party aggrieved by the decision of a Quazi is entitled to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of the Board of Quazis. In this case, the Petitioner has already exercised his right of appeal, thereby pursuing the alternative remedy provided by law. This Court is mindful of the fact that the Petitioner is now seeking the same remedy before this Court, that is the remedy he has already sought in his appeal to the Board of Quazis.

It is a well settled principle of law that where an alternative remedy is available, Courts will not exercise its writ jurisdiction. Courts have consistently emphasized that writs, particularly those of Certiorari and Prohibition, are discretionary remedies. They are not meant to bypass or short circuit other legal remedies that have been specifically provided for by statute or other legal frameworks.

In this context, an alternative remedy refers to a remedy that is equally or more appropriate and available to the aggrieved party within the legal framework. It ensures that disputes are first addressed within the specialized forums or mechanisms set out in the relevant statutes, as these forums possess the necessary expertise and procedural framework to handle such issues. This principle was affirmed in Tennakoon vs. The Director General of Customs, [[2004] 1 Sri LR, p53.], where it was held:

“The petitioner has an alternative remedy, as the Customs Ordinance itself provides for such a course of action under section 154. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction.”

Furthermore,