Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act, 2008 – ss.2(a) and 13(1)(a) – Privatisation of airports – Contractual and Regulatory Framework – Tariff and other charges for aeronautical services rendered at airports – Determination of – Revenue sharing formula – Judicial Review qua decision of a regulatory body – Scope – Joint Venture agreement between GMR Consortium and Airports Authority of India (AAI) for Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL), and on similar pattern between GVK Consortium and AAI for Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) – AAI holding 26 per cent shareholding in each of the JVs – DIAL and MIAL entered into Operation, Management and Development Agreement (‘OMDA’) with AAI and executed other project agreements including State Support Agreement (‘SSA’) – Airport Operator Agreement signed – DIAL and MIAL handed over management of respective airports in Delhi and Mumbai – DIAL and MIAL both broadly earn their revenue from two sources, viz., Aeronautical and Nonaeronautical – While they are free to fix charges towards the latter, the former component is controlled by the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India (AERA), which regulates tariff and other charges for aeronautical services rendered at airports – Dispute over different aspects of tariff fixation, viz. treatment of Fuel Throughput Charges (FTC); calculation of Hypothetical Regulatory Asset Base (HRAB); revenue from Disallowed Area; calculation of tax for determining Target Revenue; Development Fee (DF) and levy of User Development Fee (UDF) – Held: It would not be fair to examine these aspects under the microscope – Different aspects towards determination of Project Cost were examined by AERA, and AERA carried out its responsibility while granting a little leeway for the pioneering effort in an untested field in the country – It does not really lie with this Court to superimpose a view which was not found feasible in the given conspectus of the large number of reports and documents before the AERA as well as the TDSAT – What is required to be seen by this Court is that the readings are reasonably supported by evidence as judicial review is really not concerned with matters of economic policy and the endeavour certainly cannot be to substitute its view for that of the legislature or to supplant the view of the expert body – Moreover, in the given factual scenario there is something more which is required to be addressed – Before the complete legislative structure was set in place, operations were proceeded on the understanding of the agreement between the parties and the legislative intent is also apparent – This provides for due honour and consideration being given to the aforesaid intent as per provisions of s.13 of the Act – The objective is that all parties who have operated in what may be called a pioneering effort in the field of civil aviation in India should not be taken by surprise affecting their commercial viability as it would discourage private participation in such economic activities perceived to be essential by the Government – Clause (vi) of subsection (1) of s.13 of the Act clearly stipulates that in determination of tariff for aeronautical services, one of the considerations, is concession offered by Central Government in any agreement or memorandum of understanding or otherwise – Thus, the principle that legislative intent must prevail over any prior agreement would not really apply in the present scenario as the legislative intent itself incorporates and requires prior agreements to be taken into consideration albeit along with certain other parameters /requirements – All aspects in the appeals and cross-appeals, except one aspect which arose from terminology and its definition, rejected – Impugned order accordingly modified to that extent – Appeal from Regulatory Authority.
Contract – Interpretation of – Plain construction – Held: There is no reason why explicit grammatical connotation should not be applied to a contract unless it results in some absurdity – On facts, the contract was negotiated by experts and they were expected to know all the ramifications of the language they use. Doctrines / Principles – Principle of Reddendo Singula Singulis –Sentence – Complex sentence – It is only when a complex sentence has more than one subject and more than one object that a construction may be required to render each to each by reading the provision distributively.
Nabha Power Ltd. (NPL) v. Punjab State Power
Corporation Ltd. (PSPCL) & Anr. (2018) 11 SCC 508 – distinguished.
Shri Sitaram Sugar Company & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (1990) 3 SCC 223: [1990] 1 SCR 909 –
followed.
Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of M.P. (2016) 7 SCC 353 and Akshay N. Patel v. Reserve Bank of India & Anr. (2022) 3 SCC 694 – relied on.
Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala & Anr. (2019) 20 SCC 143 and Consumer Online Foundation & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2011) 5 SCC 360 : [2011] 5 SCR 911 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.