LexDELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. versus AIRPORTS ECONOMIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 802 : 2023 INSC 1046 802 CASE DETAILS DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. v. AIRPORTS ECONOMIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY & ORS. (Miscellaneous Application No.1721/2023 in C.A. No.8378/2018) DECEMBER 04, 2023 [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Effect of letter dtd.24.05.2011 produced by the applicants herein in computing Hypothetical Regulatory Asset Base (HRAB). As prayed, judgment in Delhi International Airport Limited v. Airport Economic Regulatory Authority of India whether to be modified or the matter to be remitted to TDSAT to examine the effect of the aforesaid letter for the limited issue qua computation of HRAB. Computation of Hypothetical Regulatory Asset Base (HRAB) – Effect of letter dtd.24.05.2011 – Controversy in relation to computation of HRAB was set out in Delhi International Airport Limited v. Airport Economic Regulatory Authority of India reported as [2022] 11 SCR 869 – View adopted by Airport Economic Regulatory Authority of India (AERA) and TDSAT received imprimatur of this Court– Now, an internal correspondence, a letter dated 24.05.2011 between the Ministry of Civil Aviation and AERA is produced by the applicants stating to have given rise to an error apparent on the face of the record in the aforesaid judgment – Plea of the applicants inter alia that the letter relates back to the core issue of calculation of HRAB by the method of back solving and this Court had confined its finding to the expression “pertaining to aeronautical services” but the aspect of ‘single till’ was not dealt with and that HRAB should be computed on the basis of ‘single till’ mechanism – Judgment in Delhi International Airport Limited whether to be modified or the matter to be remitted to TDSAT to 803 examine the effect of the letter dtd. 24.05.2011 for the limited issue qua computation of HRAB: Held: The nature of jurisdiction exercised by this Court is predicated on two specialist authorities/tribunals having applied their mind to it – It would be diffi cult to have a re-appreciation of evidence and facts, especially when admittedly the TDSAT has not opined on it – Not appropriate to venture into this aspect – However, the letter being in the nature of an internal communication privy to the non-applicants, should have been placed before the concerned authorities – It would be diffi cult to say at this stage whether it has any impact or not, until the opinion of the TDSAT is available – Eff ect of this document to be examined by the TDSAT – TDSAT may for the limited issue qua computation of HRAB examine the eff ect of the letter dtd. 24.05.2011, and take its own independent view on the impact of the same in computing HRAB and whether ‘single till’ mechanism should be the basis of the computation. [Paras 14, 15] OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous Application No.1721 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8378 of 2018. From the Judgment and Order dated 23.04.2018 of the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in AERA Appeal No. 10 of 2012. With Miscellaneous Application No. 1710 of 2023 in C.A. No.5401 of 2019. Appearances: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Sajan Poovayya, Vipin Sanghi, Sr. Advs., Milanka Chaudhary, Ms. Naina Dubey, Alok Tripathi, Mahesh Agarwal, Ms. Amrita Narayan, Manu Krishnan, Mohit D. Ram, Ashwin Rakesh, Abhishek Kakkar, Arshit, Anubhav Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G., Apoorv Kurup, Pranay Ranjan, Ritwiz Rishabh, Durga Dutt, Sarthak Karol, Ms. Yogya Rajpurohit, Amrish Kumar, Sachin DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. v. AIRPORTS ECONOMIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY & ORS. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R. 804 Sharma, Anil Kumar Gulati, Ms. Nur Tandon, Naman Sharma, Kunal Jindia, Chitran Singhal, Shewta Bharti, Yashodhara Burmon Roy, Ritesh Kumar, Ms. Neelam Rathore, Shubham Seth, Anuj Panwar, Nikilesh Ramachandran, Buddy Ranganadhan, Ms. Nishtha Kumar, Prantar Basu Choudhary, Sahil Tagotra, Arjun Mahajan, Sumit R. Sharma, Raghvendra Budholiya, Piyush Gautam, Advs. for the Respondents. JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. 1. We thought that our judgment in Delhi International Airport Limited v. Airport Economic Regulatory Authority of India1 would have resolved all the issues. It appears not. 2. Applications have been fi led by both Delhi International Airport L
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.