(1) The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") framed different schemes for providing transport services on routes falling within the region of West Godavari district. Subsequently, the said schemes were approved by the State Government with certain modifications. The Scheme was for the total exclusion of the private operators on the entire length of route as well as on portion of the routes. However, this Scheme made five exceptions whereby the permits granted to the following categories of operators were not cancelled. They are: (1) the State transport undertakings; (2) the existing town services operating on the notified routes; (3) the holders of stage carriage permits for a distance not exceeding 5 km on the notified route; (4) the existing services operating on the inter-State routes incorporated in the concluded inter-State agreement under Section 63(3-B) of the MV Act, 1939; and (5) the services operated by Devasthanams.

(2) It is not disputed that the said Scheme has come into force. It appears that Respondent 3 submitted an application to the Regional Transport Authority, West Godavari for permanent stage carriage permit on new town service route D.N.R. College (Bhimavaram) to Srinvavruksham. The Corporation objected to the grant of permit on the ground that the permit was sought on a portion of mofussil notified route. The Regional Transport Authority accepted the objection of the Corporation and, consequently, the application submitted by Respondent 3 was rejected. Aggrieved, Respondent 3 filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The said appeal was allowed. The Tribunal directed that a stage carriage permit be granted to Respondent 3 on town service route. Aggrieved, the Corporation filed a petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the order of the Tribunal. It appears that a large number of identical matters were already pending before the High Court and as such the matter was referred to a Full Bench. The Full Bench, inter alia, took the view that under Exception 2 it is permissible for the Regional Transport Authority to grant permit on town service routes and that the State Government while approving mofussil route, the town service routes did not automatically stand notified. In that view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the Corporation was dismissed. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the Corporation is before us.

(3) Learned counsel, appearing for the appellant Corporation urged that once a mofussil approved scheme for the total exclusion of the private operators came into force, all the shorter routes including town service routes overlapping the mofussil notified route stood as notified routes and it is not permissible for the Regional Transport Authority to grant permit on the said portion of notified route. Secondly, he urged that Exception 2 of the Scheme relates to the existing services being operated by the operators and not for the future grant of permit on the said portion of route. Prima facie, we find merit in the argument. However, in A.P. SRTC v. STAT it was held that under Exception 2 it is permissible to grant fresh permit on town service routes. We are of the view that the said interpretation of Exception 2 is not legally correct in view of settled legal position in regard to consequences of an approved scheme.

(4) The judgment cited above being by a Bench of three learned Judges, we are of the view that these cases require to be heard by a Bench of five Judges. Let the matters be placed before the Honble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.