Regulator impleadment in tariff appeals upheld, with further Supreme Court appeal maintainable by necessary implication.

A statutory regulator whose tariff-setting role is regulatory, not adjudicatory, may be impleaded and heard in appeals against its tariff orders before the Appellate Tribunal because it has a public interest in the outcome and the statute does not exclude it by implication. On the same reasoning, where the statute permits a further appeal to the Supreme Court and the regulator is a necessary party in the tribunal proceedings, maintainability of that appeal can also arise by necessary implication even without express wording. The preliminary objection to maintainability therefore failed, and the merits were left for separate hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India was required to be impleaded and could contest appeals against its tariff orders before the Appellate Tribunal; and (ii) whether, if not expressly provided by the statute, it could still maintain an appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 31 of the AERA Act.

Issue (i): Whether the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India was required to be impleaded and could contest appeals against its tariff orders before the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: The determination of tariff under Section 13(1)(a) was held to be a regulatory function, not an adjudicatory one. The statutory scheme required the Authority to consider broad policy factors, public interest, economic viability, efficiency, consultation, and the power to amend tariff in public interest. In such regulatory matters, the Authority has a statutory and public interest in the outcome and may also be necessary for effective adjudication because of its domain expertise. The absence of an express impleadment clause in the statute did not exclude it by implication.

Conclusion: The Authority could be impleaded as a respondent and contest appeals against its tariff orders before the Appellate Tribunal.

Issue (ii): Whether, if not expressly provided by the statute, it could still maintain an appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 31 of the AERA Act.

Analysis: The right to appeal under Section 31 was interpreted in light of the Authority's position as a necessary party in appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. Since the Authority was held entitled to be impleaded in such appeals, it could also maintain the further statutory appeal to the Supreme Court. The absence of express words conferring appeal rights on the Authority did not defeat maintainability when the statute, read as a whole, supported that role by necessary implication.

Conclusion: The Authority could maintain an appeal under Section 31 of the AERA Act.

Final Conclusion: The preliminary objection to maintainability failed, and the appeals were held maintainable, leaving the merits to be heard separately.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory regulator whose tariff-determining function is regulatory and not adjudicatory may be impleaded and heard in appeals against its tariff orders, and where the statute confers a further appeal from the appellate tribunal without expressly limiting who may file it, maintainability can be sustained by necessary implication.

---