( 1 ) IN this SLP one important question arises for consideration whether the petitioner Management is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution of India and whether it is amenable to writ jurisdiction of the high Court. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, this question is answered in favour of the petitioners own institution by a judgment of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in CA No. 3055 of 1991 decided on 17-1- 1998. That decision certainly helps the petitioners. However, learned counsel for Respondent 1 submits that Respondent 1 was not a party to those proceedings so that the judgment may not be res judicata. He has submitted that the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court which was not noticed in that judgment takes a contrary view. The decision on which reliance is placed is rendered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of unnikrishnan, J. P. v. State of A. P. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the observation of Justice Mohan in para 77 of the said judgment supports his contention. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent 1 submits that the view taken by Justice Mohan in para 76 supports his contention. In our view, this controversy may be better resolved by a three-Judge Bench of this Court as sitting in the Bench consisting of two judges it will not be proper for us to consider the question whether the decision rendered by this Court in CA No. 3055 of 1991 is correct or not. This SLP is therefore directed to be listed before a Bench of three learned judges of this Court. We make it clear that the entire SLP is placed for consideration. Office is directed to obtain appropriate direction from the honble the Chief Justice of India in this connection. Court Masters