D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India – Appellant
Versus
Delhi International Airport Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI.
| INDEX | |
| A. | Statutory Background |
| B. | Submissions |
| C. | Issues |
| D. | Analysis |
| i. Authorities exercising ‘adjudicatory functions’ cannot defend their orders in appeal | |
| ii. Necessary and proper parties in regulatory proceedings | |
| iii. The test of quasi-judicial functions: A misnomer | |
| iv. The test for determining an ‘adjudicatory function’: Exploring Sitaram Sugar | |
| v. Whether tariff determination is an adjudicatory function: PTC and GRIDCO | |
| vi. Tariff determination for aeronautical services by AERA is a regulatory function | |
| vii. Interpretation of Sections 18 and 31 of the AERA Act | |
| E. | Conclusion |
1. Airports Economic Regulatory Authority1 [“AERA”] has instituted proceedings under Section 31 of the Airport Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act 20082 [“AERA Act”] for challenging the judgments of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.3 [“TDSAT”] TDSAT is the Appellate Tribunal for the purposes of the AERA Act and it has the competence to hear appeals against orders of AERA. The respondents have raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeals on the
Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (1992) 2 SCC 524 [Para 32]
PTC India v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2010) 4 SCC 603 [Para 13
BSES Rajdhani Power Limited v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission
Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd v. Union of India
GRIDCO v. Western Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited
Savitri Devi v. District Jugde, Gorakhpur
Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque
Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue
Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat
Syed Yakoob v. KS Radhakrishnan
Bar Council of Maharashtra v. MV Dabholkar
Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India
Vidus Impex & Traders Ltd. v. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 8 SCC 384 [Para 32]
Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders & Investors P. Ltd. (2013) 5 SCC 397 [Para 32]
Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S Advani
Shivji Nathubhai v. Union of India
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd.
The Airports Economic Regulatory Authority can appeal against TDSAT orders as it has a vital interest in tariff determinations, establishing its role as a necessary party in such appeals.
The CERC possesses both regulatory and adjudicatory powers under the Electricity Act, allowing it to impose compensation for delays while retaining the framework under which such determinations are m....
The court emphasized that tariff revisions under contractual agreements should be mutually agreed upon and prohibited unilateral changes by authorities without consent.
Writ petitions challenging regulatory fixation of normative O&M charges as tariff component not maintainable due to statutory appeal to expert Appellate Tribunal under Electricity Act, absent jurisdi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the interpretation and enforcement of Regulation 17 of the CERC Tariff Regulations fall within the adjudicatory powers of the Central Electric....
Regulatory functions performed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission do not constitute a taxable supply under GST, as they are not conducted in the course of business.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.