A redundant writ certiorari or prohibition (Discussion)

On advent of 21st century, advancement, reformation, re-formulation, innovation and what not (?) have been manifestly seen in various spheres of economic, industry, science, technology, etc, after all for well-being of the peoples of the world. Likewise, the same are necessary for the spheres of law and/or judiciary wherein, there are so many age-old laws/Acts have now become archaic because of disuse thereof or impact of ever changing situations thereon with the passage of time. Hence, innovations in nomenclatures; re-formulation or removal of redundancy etc in the context of laws/Acts have now also become inevitable in the sphere of law. Therefore, in the context and out of several writs that can be issued by only superior courts in case of breach of citizens' rights and/or to review orders of any inferior courts; two writs namely CERTIORARI and PROHIBITION are issued on similar grounds; are quite similar in nature of their operation and have similar purposes and relief to provide justice to victimised citizens/parties.

But there remains a significant distinction between the said two writs. And that distinction is the stage. At which stage, the writ be issued or when to file? Thus, it differs the said two writs from each other, fractioning them into two parts on the basis the distinct ground of  "Filing Stage "  in each of them. In the case of a writ of CERTIORARI, it is issued at the disposal or completion of a case at an inferior Forum; whereas in the case of a writ of PROHIBITION, it is passed at very initial stage of a case, restricting courts, Tribunal and others for any further action ahead in the case. 

When both the writs - CERTIORATI & PROHIBITION bear similar features in their grounds; operation: purposes and relief, except as a distinct factor of the stage/when to file (?); then why and how and as there is no any extraordinary feature/s therein that could be attracted to or needed necessarily to be separated both the writs from each other, each with a respective distinct name, have, they each, been rendered a separate position in law with a distinct name, instead of nomenclature it (writ) with  anyone only single  name out of CERTIORARI & PROHIBITION, by removing or getting rid of or revoking any of the said two writs in the sphere of law?  In essence and conclusion, it sounds that,  any one of the said two writs is REDUNDANT on the basis of similarity in their features. They should be merged into each other being a consolidated and comprehensive one and the only one WRIT either with the name of CERTIORARI or PROHIBITION.

That re-formulation and re-consolidation of and re-nomenclature to the said writs into one is now necessary for being one and the only one writ with any name of the said two names. Why shouldn't we keep one and the only one writ either CERTIORARI or PROHIBITION, not both, so far as similarities manifestly found in their features and the both writs in question are concerned to be declared one of them as REDUNDANT? This is my own notion/concept, that I have just posted open to the subjects of all nations of the world at large and that it is not my concern whether it be followed or not that depends upon Parliaments, Law Ministries and Law Commissions of all the nations of the world. Having any nation much law doesn't mean much & quick justice. Justice doesn't depend upon the number of laws.

Therefore, if one of writs, as expatiated above, be declared as Redundant and revoked; thereby it doesn't affect adversely on administration of justice, because all the facets of both the writs be embodied into only one consolidated and comprehensive WRIT, in lieu of retaining two writs which are presently existing in law, since their inception. This concept that took shape, while studying them with the informal researching mindset of me has been posted here just for brooding over & discussion.