Niroshana And Another v. Gunasekera And Another – sllr 2006 volume 3 page 152

In NIROSHANA AND ANOTHER versus GUNASEKERA AND ANOTHER, the court addressed the interpretation and operation of the Debt Conciliation Ordinance, particularly concerning Section 32(2) and the extent of the Debt Conciliation Board’s discretionary powers. It was held that the statutory language must be strictly interpreted to give effect to each word, that the provision requiring dismissal upon failure to reach settlement is directory and not mandatory, and that recourse to alternative statutory remedies must precede judicial review. This holding reaffirmed the principle that an alternative remedy must be exhausted before invoking discretionary writ jurisdiction, referencing relevant precedent in statutory construction and certiorari’s discretionary nature. The decision underscores the judici