JUDGMENT

This special leave petition is directed against the order dated 1st November, 1991 in Civil Review No. 12/1991 (in Writ Petition No. 447/1991) by which the earlier order of the 13th August, 1991 disposing of the writ petition on consent terms was recalled and the writ petition restored. The order dated 13th August, 1991 disposing of the writ petition proceeded on the concession made on behalf of the respondent-Bank to the following effect :

"Mr. Chhabil Dass says that respondent No. 1, the Punjab National Bank, though denying the statement of facts made in the writ petition, has no objection to rendering normal banking services to the petitioners, including facilities pertaining to local guarantees, not involving foreign exchange, and letters of credit, subject to the rules and regulations framed by the Bank and the Reserve Bank of India. However, these facilities will not include advancing of any loan or concession to the petitioners and will also be subject to the rights of the Bank to exercise its lien as lawfully available to it. He further clarifies that the day-to-day deposits of the petitioners made in respect of normal banking facilities, will not be adjusted towards the lien."

Later, it would appear, the Bank urged that the concession had been made as a result of a misconception of the legal position as to the Banks right to a lien. Thereupon, the High Court reviewed the earlier order dated 13th August, 1991 and set it aside. The result was that the writ petition was restored and is now binding decision.

2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. Special leave granted.

In view of some transitional arrangements that we indicate in this order, we think any final pronouncement on the question raised in the appeal becomes unnecessary. Accordingly, this order disposes of the pending writ petition in the High Court as well.

3. We may briefly refer to the controversy in the writ petition before the High Court. The appellants, who manufacture watches and clocks are aggrieved by the denial of banking services to them by the respondent Bank. The denial was on the ground that the appellants who allegedly owe large sums of money to the Bank, have failed and neglected to repay the same. The appellants allege that the monopolist Nationalised Banking Sector has virtually made it impossible for the appellants to avail themselves of the normal banking services and operations such as furnishment of letters of credit for import purposes, payment of statutory outgoings, taxes, wages and salaries, payment to suppliers of raw-materials etc. This refusal of the services is sought to be denied on the authority of certain Reserve Bank instructions and inter-Bank arrangements.

Respondent-bank would, however, say that the incidents of a bankers lien would extend to all accounts of the debtor-constituent and, the banker would be entitled to appropriate any funds to the credit of the constituent in the hands of the banker under any account whatsoever. Learned counsel for the appellants says that the problem presented does not really relate so much to the scope or the incidents of the bankers lien as to the question whether a constituent can be denied banking services by all Banks - even those to which it does not owe money. Appellants allege that as a result of this attitude made manifest by the Banks in terms of discipline of the Reserve Bank of India, appellants cannot survive at all as normal banking activity is indispensable for day-to-day business even at subsistence levels. Appellants say that they are stifled by these coercive measures and the Bank is applying these procedures to coerce repayment of yet unadjudicated disputed claims. It is submitted that some interim arrangements should have to be made in this behalf till the respondent-Bank proceeds to have its claims adjudicated which, according to the appellants, the respondent-Bank is reluctant to do but is resorting to the coercive pressures by a total denial of banking servic