ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel on both sides in great detail. 2. It is really a dispute between a Banker and its customer. The writ petitioner had a credit facility with the second respondent Bank. According to the petitioner, the Directors of the petitioner Company have been replaced in its Extraordinary General Meeting. The Bank was apparently not informed of the proposed change. Bona fides of the action being suspected by the Bank, the bank called for additional security and also for furnishing a fresh bank guarantee to secure its loan and it was in that situation, thereafter petitioner has come to this Court, essentially complaining that if the banking transactions are abruptly stopped by the bank, the petitioner will suffer and that would benefit neither of the parties. 3. On the petitioner assuring that immediately after the Durga Puja, it will elect the Managing Director or appoint the Managing Director and the Managing Director as well as the members of his family would provide their personal guarantees, we were persuaded to pass an interim order (notwithstanding the fact that this was really a dispute between a banker and its customer) directing that on the Company fulfilling the promise by furnishing personal guarantees of the Managing Director and the members of his family, the petitioner would be allowed to continue to operate the account and the petitioner could also encash cheques and other negotiable instruments through its account by withdrawing the amount covered by those instruments duly presented in the bank. 4. The Bank subsequently filed a counter affidavit submitting that it has recalled the loan by its communication dated 27.9.2003 and that this was a dispute between the Bank and its customer and that what is loaned is public money and the Bank has to ensure the safety of its advances and this Court cannot compel the Bank to continue the credit facility made available to the petitioner-company earlier and that this is not a fit case for interference by this Court. 5. On the side of the petitioner, IA. No. 2225 of 2003 was filed enclosing therewith certain documents and seeking an amendment of the prayer in the writ petition so as to include a challenge to the recall notice dated 27.9.2003, which was annexed to that Interlocutory application as Annexure 5. 6. 5. On the side of the petitioner, IA. No. 2225 of 2003 was filed enclosing therewith certain documents and seeking an amendment of the prayer in the writ petition so as to include a challenge to the recall notice dated 27.9.2003, which was annexed to that Interlocutory application as Annexure 5. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner essentially relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Purewal & Associates and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors., 1993 Suppl (3) SCC 309, to substantiate his argument that the Court has a limited role when a nationalized bank, like the respondent herein, deprives a customer of banking services, which it was entitled to enjoy in the normal course. Counsel submitted that a similar direction as the one contained therein, can be made, clarifying that no credit facility will be provided to the petitioner, unless and until the petitioner is able to satisfy the bank of its ability to carry on its business as it was doing earlier and is in a position to provide adequate guarantees to the satisfaction of the Bank, Meanwhile, the petitioner may be permitted to open a current account so that it could deposit the cheques and other negotiable instruments received by it and withdraw the said amounts, so as to carry on the day-to-day affairs of the Company and its transactions and for the purposes as mentioned in the decision of the Supreme Court above cited. Counsel also submitted that it could be clarified that, credit facilities would be made available to the petitioner only if the parties are able to agree at any negotiation that they may have in that regard. 7. Counsel for the Bank, on the other hand, submitted that this is a case where the Bank was not taken into confidence and three prominent and senior Directors had been thrown out and the Bank was well within its right to recall its loan. Counsel further submitted that Bank has done nothing that was not provided by law and in that situation, there is no reason to issue any direction to permit the petitioner to operate the account including the credit facilities provided by the Bank earlier. 8. We think that it is essentially a mater for negotiation and settlement between the parties. Counsel further submitted that Bank has done nothing that was not provided by law and in that situation, there is no reason to issue any direction to permit the petitioner to operate the account including the credit facilities provided by the Bank earlier. 8. We think that it is essentially a mater for negotiation and settlement between the parties. After all, the relationship is one of Banker and customer, even though the respondent Bank may be understood a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, that fact alone does not justify interference by the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in a dispute of this nature where a creditor Bank calls upon its customer to provide adequate security so as to enable it to continue to operate an existing account or enjoy a credit facility. That is a matter of contract between the parties. The argument that the petitioner is entitled to enjoy the banking services that are offered by the respondent Bank, in our view, cannot certainly entitle the petitioner to claim that a credit facility must be continued and extended to the petitioner, even if the Bank, as a prudent banker, was not satisfied that the said facilities should be continued or that it would be unsafe to continue the making available of such facility. 9. Of course, in an appropriate case, we may, by drawing inspiration from the decision of Supreme Court, direct that a current account may be permitted to be opened by the customer in the bank and transactions carried on through it with no obligation on the Bank, to continue the credit facility being made available earlier. We think that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is a matter for negotiation between the petitioner and the bank and it is not proper or expedient for this Court to intervene in the matter. In other words, now that the loan has been recalled, it is for the petitioner to negotiate with the bank to continue the credit facility. We do not think that it is proper to impose a customer on the bank when the bank is not interested in continuing the business with the customer. In other words, now that the loan has been recalled, it is for the petitioner to negotiate with the bank to continue the credit facility. We do not think that it is proper to impose a customer on the bank when the bank is not interested in continuing the business with the customer. Of course, if the parties are able to settle the problem, that will be a good thing for both of them and it may become unnecessary to fight litigation but that by itself does not justify our further interference in the matter. We passed the interim order in the hope that by the time the matter comes up again, the problems would have been squared up by the parties. Unfortunately, that has not happened. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition by declining to interfere and leaving the par ties to their respective legal rights to be worked out in appropriate other proceedings or by mutual negotiations.