In the legal matter of Delhi International airport Limited v. Airport Economic regulatory Authority of India, it appears that despite a prior judgment, new developments have arisen. Both Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL) and Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) filed applications based on the discovery of what they claim to be a crucial piece of evidence – a letter dated 24.05.2011, an internal correspondence between the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA) and the Airport Economic regulatory Authority (AERA). This letter discusses the methodology for calculating the Aeronautical Asset Base and its implications on regulatory periods.
The crux of the matter revolves around the calculation of the Hypothetical Regulatory assets. The State Support Agreement (SSA) outlined the method of working backward to derive HRAB, impacting subsequent years. The letter in question raises concerns about whether HRAB was correctly calculated, specifically with regard to the ‘single till’ mechanism.
The applicants argue that the court’s previous decision focused on the expression “pertaining to aeronautical services,” but did not delve into the ‘single Till’ aspect. They contend that in the year 2008-09, the ‘single till’ mechanism prevailed, treating aeronautical and non- Aeronautical revenue as composite revenue. Therefore, for determining the opening of HRAB for FY 2009-10, the entire revenue of the previous year (2008-09) should be considered.
Additionally, reference is made to a letter from the Airports Authority of India in 18.06.2018, emphasizing that airport charges were fixed on a cost recovery principle, considering both aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues. The argument is that the “hypothetical Regulatory base” should be computed based on the entire revenue for the period between 01.04.2008 and 31.03.2009.
The dispute also touches on the categorization of fuel throughput charge (FTC) as an aeronautical service, with the applicants seeking either a modification of the judgment or a remittance of the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration of HRAB computation.
In response, it is asserted that the issue of FTC has already bi addressed in previous court judgments. The letter dated 24.05.2011 is characterized as clarificatory communication, and the Ministry of Civil Aviation disclaims any role in providing a mechanism, quoting information from the SSA and the ABN AMRO report
In its decision, the court expresses reluctance to reevaluate evidence and facts already considered by specialist authorities. However, acknowledging the potential impact of the new letter, the court opts for an alternative approach. It directs the Tribunal (TDSAT) to examine the effect of the letter on HRAB computation considering the ‘single till’ mechanism, and to form an independent view on its impact. The decision emphasizes that affected parties have a remedy before the court in either situation.
By : Areeba, Llyod law college intern under legal vidhiya
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
