Background and Context
AERA is necessary party before TDSAT and can file appeal under Sec 31.The Supreme Court in Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India vs Delhi International Airport Ltd. on 18.10.2024 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3098-3099 of 2023 clarified the maintainability of appeals by a regulatory authority. The three-Judge Bench held that AERA has the right to contest an appeal against its tariff order before TDSAT and prefer an appeal before the Supreme Court under Section 31 of the AERA Act 2008.The facts show that AERA determines tariff for aeronautical services at major airports under Section 13(1)(a). DIAL and other operators challenged tariff orders before TDSAT under Section 17(b) and 18(2).
TDSAT modified the orders. AERA filed appeals under Section 31. Respondents argued that AERA cannot be aggrieved person under Section 18(2), tariff determination is quasi-judicial as per PTC India vs CERC (2010) 4 SCC 603, Sitaram Sugar vs Union of India (1990) 3 SCC 223 and GRIDCO, Section 18(5) separates Authority from parties, Section 31 does not empower AERA unlike Section 53T Competition Act which empowers CCI, and bias if AERA both contests and redetermines tariff on remand. The Court in para 51 to 60 distinguished PTC and GRIDCO and held tariff determination under Section 13(1)(a) is regulatory function not adjudicatory. PTC held tariff fixation like price fixation is generally legislative and nature must be determined upon analysis of statute as per Sitaram Sugar.
GRIDCO dealt with Section 62 Electricity Act already settled as adjudicatory. For AERA, the Court gave six reasons including broad guidelines under Section 13(1)(a) without weightage leaving discretion, policy considerations, Section 13(1A) consultation for bidding documents showing economic viability interest, Section 13(2) amendment power in public interest, and Section 13(3) limitations resembling Article 19 reasonable restrictions. Section 13(4) requiring consultations and reasoned decisions incorporates natural justice but does not make it adjudicatory. On maintainability under Sections 18 and 31, the Court in para 62 to 66 held AERA is necessary party in tariff appeals. Section 17(1)(a) gives TDSAT original jurisdiction with proviso to obtain opinion of Authority as proper party.
For tariff appeals under Section 17(1)(b), AERA is not just expert but regulator interested in outcome with duty to ensure airports run economically viable without compromising public interest. Section 18(5) as the case may be accounts for cases where AERA is not party under Section 17(a) but cannot exclude AERA as respondent in tariff appeals. Section 31 does not state who can file, for such category at minimum parties before TDSAT can file before Supreme Court.
Conclusion
AERA vs DIAL dated 18.10.2024 establishes that tariff determination is regulatory and AERA is necessary party before TDSAT and can maintain appeal under Section 31 before Supreme Court. The judgment protects economic regulators defending tariff orders in public interest and preventing monopoly abuse, strengthening regulatory jurisprudence crucial for Law and Economics and competition law comparison with CCI.
