The applicants have referred to a letter dated 24.05.2011, which is an internal correspondence between the Ministry of Civil Aviation (for short ‘MoCA’) and the Airport Economic Regulatory Authority (for short ‘AERA’) inter alia stating that “Accordingly, in this case the proposed approach is to back solve the initial aeronautical Asset Base given the aeronautical charges.
In the formula in question this would imply that the term ‘RB’ as defined, thus, base calculation for RB 0 would have an impact on the calculation of RB 1 and for further years.
In effect, it has been submitted that this Court confined its finding to the expression “pertaining to aeronautical services” but the aspect of ‘single till’ had not been dealt with and that HRAB should be computed on the basis of ‘single till’ mechanism.
In substance, the contention on behalf of the applicants is that the ‘single till’ mechanism was prevalent in the year 2008-09 where there was no 3 6 distinction between aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenue and the entire revenue, i.e., aeronautical and non-aeronautical were considered as composite revenue and tariff was fixed on a cost-plus basis.
In the reply, it has been stated that the issue relating to FTC is no more integra res in view of the judgment of this Court in paras 41 to 45.
Thus, the 5 6 TDSAT may for the limited issue quainfluenced computation of HRAB examine the effect of the letter now produced before us, i.e., the letter dated 24.05.2011 by the MoCA to the AERA, 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.
[Sanjay Kishan Kaul]………………..
J.
Case Title: DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. Vs. AIRPORTS ECONOMIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Case Number: MA-001721 / 2023
