2024 (10) TMI 1328 - SC - Law of Competition

AERA can contest appeals against its tariff orders before TDSAT and appeal TDSAT decisions under Section 31

SC held that AERA has the right to contest appeals against its tariff orders before TDSAT and subsequently appeal TDSAT's orders under Section 31 of the ... Maintainability of the appeals - right to contest an appeal against its order determining tariff for aeronautical services before TDSAT - Whether AERA has a right to contest an appeal against its order determining tariff for aeronautical services before TDSAT, and then consequently prefer an appeal against the order of TDSAT before this Court under Section 31 of the AERA Act? - Even if AERA does not have a right to contest an appeal against its order determining tariff for aeronautical services before TDSAT, does it have a right to prefer an appeal against the order of TDSAT before this Court in terms of Section 31 of the AERA Act? HELD THAT:- The judicial principle that a judicial or quasi-judicial authority must not be impleaded as a party to an appeal against its order is premised on two reasons, both rooted in constitutional philosophy. The first reason is that with the impleadment of the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities as respondents, they will be required to justify their decision before the Appellate Court. This is contrary to the established principle that Judges only speak through their judgments. Any dilution of this principle would lead to a situation where every judicial authority would be called upon to justify their decisions in the Court of appeal. This would break down the entire edifice of the judicial system. The exercise of power by Authorities and Tribunals was described as “quasi-judicial’ to ensure that the principles of natural justice were complied with. However, with the evolution of the doctrine of fariness and reasonableness, all administrative actions (even if there is nothing ‘judicial (or adjudicatory)’ about them) are required to comply with the principles of natural justice. The evolution of the fairness doctrine has transcended many boundaries. Thus, the reason for which the expression ‘quasi-judicial’ came into vogue is no longer relevant. Neither are the tests to identify them because the functions of an authority no more need to have any semblance to ‘judicial functions’ for it to act judicially (that is, comply with the principles of natural justice). AERA has a statutory duty to regulate tariff upon a consideration of multiple factors to ensure that airports are run in an economically viable manner without compromising on the interests of the public. This statutory role is evident, inter alia, from the factors that AERA must consider while determining tariff and the power to amend tariff from time to time in public interest - It is interested not in a personal capacity. Its interest lies in ensuring that the concerns of public interest which animate the statute and the performance of its functions by AERA are duly preserved. Thus, AERA is a necessary party in the appeal against its tariff order before TDSAT and it must be impleaded as a respondent. It does not confer that power to any party expressly. There are three ways in which provisions dealing with statutory appeal are drafted. First, the provision may not prescribe who can file an appeal such as Section 31 of the AERA Act. Second, the provision may provide that an appeal may be preferred by a ‘person aggrieved’ such as under the Electricity Act 96, the Major Port Authorities Act 2021, the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act 1992 and the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority Act 2012. The third category is where the statute confers ‘any party’ with the right to file an appeal as under the Companies Act 2013.100 With respect to the first of the three categories, at a minimum the parties to the appeal before first appellate body (in this case TDSAT) will have a right to file an appeal before this Court. AERA can file an appeal under Section 31 in view of conclusion that it is a necessary party in the appeals against the tariff orders issued by it. The appeals filed by AERA against orders of TDSAT under Section 31 of the AERA Act are maintainable. The Registry shall list the matters before the Regular Bench for adjudication of the appeals on merits. Issues Involved:1. Whether AERA has a right to contest an appeal against its order determining tariff for aeronautical services before TDSAT and consequently prefer an appeal against the order of TDSAT before the Supreme Court under Section 31 of the AERA Act.2. Even if AERA does not have a right to contest an appeal against its order determining tariff for aeronautical services before TDSAT, does it have a right to prefer an appeal against the order of TDSAT before the Supreme Court in terms of Section 31 of the AERA Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. AERA's Right to Contest an Appeal:The core issue was whether the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA), a quasi-judicial body, has the right to contest an appeal against its own orders before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) and subsequently appeal to the Supreme Court. The judgment clarified that statutory authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions typically cannot defend their orders in appeal due to the principle that judges speak only through their judgments and to avoid bias. However, the court noted that AERA, while determining tariffs, operates as a regulatory authority rather than a purely adjudicatory body. This regulatory role involves considering various factors like capital expenditure, service quality, and economic viability, which are policy-oriented rather than individual adjudications. Therefore, AERA's involvement in appeals against its tariff orders is justified as it acts in the public interest and not merely as a judicial authority defending its decisions.2. AERA's Right to Appeal to the Supreme Court:The second issue was whether AERA could appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 31 of the AERA Act. The court observed that while Section 31 does not explicitly mention AERA's right to appeal, the statutory scheme and AERA's regulatory role imply such a right. AERA is considered a necessary party in appeals against its tariff orders due to its vested interest in ensuring that the regulatory objectives of economic viability and public interest are upheld. The court emphasized that AERA's interest is institutional, focusing on regulatory objectives rather than personal or adjudicatory interests, thus allowing it to appeal to the Supreme Court.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that AERA's appeals against TDSAT's orders under Section 31 of the AERA Act are maintainable. This conclusion was based on the recognition of AERA's regulatory role and its interest in the public and economic implications of tariff determinations. The court directed that the matters be listed before the Regular Bench for adjudication on merits, affirming AERA's standing to participate in appeals concerning its regulatory functions.