1. The writ petitioner seeks a Mandamus against the respondent – bank, which in effect amounts to seeking declaration that the ‘banker’s lien’ exercised by the bank over the gold and jewellery of the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary and seeks a consequential direction to the respondent – bank to return/release the gold ornaments.

2. Both the learned counsel have advanced detailed arguments in support of their respective case and have cited number of decisions. While the petitioner has placed strong reliance upon a decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in K. JAGDISHWAR REDDY v. MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK (1988 (1) ALT 605) the learned counsel for the respondent – bank has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in SYNDICATE BANK v. VIJAY KUMAR ((1992) 2 SCC 330). While the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, undoubtedly, supports his case, there are several later judgments, which are referred to hereunder, which would show that the aforesaid decision in JAGDISHWAR REDDY’s case (1 supra) cited was not accepted as the correct legal position. It is, therefore, necessary to set out, as hereunder, the brief facts to appreciate the