Annexure II - AERA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

comments of Ministry of Civil Aviation on the consultation paper No.07/2010-11 dated 23.09.2010 circulated by AERA are as below : Ministry of Civil Aviation has already seized of the larger issue of deciding the regulatory till /framework. As such, the views of this Ministry would be conveyed to AERA on finalization of the issue..... ...AERA should take into consideration the views of this Ministry as mentioned above, while determining the UDF for Rajiv Gandhi International Airport at Hyderabad. " 15. AERA thereafter vide Order 6/2010-11 dated zs" October 2010 approved UDF of Rs. 430/- per departing domestic passenger and Rs. 1700/- per departing international passenger (exclusive of taxes) on single till adhoc basis. 16. Vide Order NO.13/2010-11 issued on iz" January, 2011, AERA finalized its regulatory approach and general framework for determination of tariffs for aeronautical services provided by the airport operators; adopting a single till philosophy for all major airports in India (except Delhi and Mumbai). AERA floated draft guidelines to be followed by Airport Operators by way of consultation paper 14/2010-11 issued on 2 nd February 2011. Laying down methodology of assigning a value to the land and reducing the same from RAB for tariff determination was part of this consultation paper. This was later finalized by AERA by issuing Order 14/2010-11 dated zs'' February 2011 and Direction OS/2010-11 dated zs" February, 2011. 17. The Single Till Order 13/2010-11, order 14/2010-11 and consequential Direction No.s/2010-11 issued by AERA were challenged by HIAL before the AERA Appellate Tribunal raising all the contentions and soughtthe Tribunal to set aside the impugned orders. During the above consultation process, Airport Authority of India, vide their letter Ref. AAI/CHQjREV/AERA/APT/201011 dated 22.02.2011 had submitted that the comments of AAI have been forwarded to the Ministry of Civil Aviation for its perusal and the same will be submitted to the Authority immediately on its receipt from the Min istry . 18. However in the meanwhile AERA had issued above-mentioned Orders and Direction adopting Single Till fo r determination of tariff at HIAL and BIAL. These orders are not in line with the provisions of the Concession Agreements including State Support Agreement and Land Lease Agreement. Annexure II-B 19. The adoption of Till should be based on and in consonance with the provisions of the Concession Agreement signed by HIALwith MoCA. CP No. 9/2013-14/T-12023(14)/1/2012- Tariff- Vol - III Annexure II-B Page 4 of 51 4
As already mentioned earlier, MoCA during the ad-hoc consultation had submitted that: Ministrv of Civil Aviation has already seized of the larger issue of deciding the regulatorv till /framework. As such, the views of this Ministry would be conveyed to AERA on finalization ofthe issue..... 20. HIAL has now submitted its application for tariff determination with Authority and the same is under consideration by the Authority. As such there is a need for MoCA to issue a direction in the form of clarification to AERA : (a) To adopt a Dual Till in compliance with provisions of Concession Agreement. (b) Not to deduct the value of land meant for Non Airport Activities from RAB and also not to consider the revenues generated therefrom, while fixing the Regulated Charges, as per Concession Agreement at RGIA, Hyderabad. 21. We hereby reproduce various provisions of Concession Agreement as well as other relevant documents and facts in support of our contentions: A. Till Issue: a. Provisions of Concession Agreement: Article 10 of the Concession Agreement signed by GMR Hyderabad international airport signed with MoCA reads as under: i. Authority to impose charges: MoCA have granted rights to GHIAL with regard to the charges at the Airport. They have categorically and unequivocally granted certain rights to HIAL under Article 10 of the Concession Agreement. The said Art icle10 reads as follows: 10.1. Parties having right to impose charges Subject to Applicable Law, no Person (other than HIAL, any Service Provider Right Holder granted a relevant Service Provider Right or the AAJ) may impose any charge or fee (a) in respect of the provision at the Airport of any facilities and/or services which are included within Airport Activities or (b) in respect of the movement ofpassenger, or vehicular traffic on the Airport or the Site. Annexure II-B ii. Only the following Regulated Charges as enumerated in the Schedule 6 of . the Concession Agreement are to be regulated by the Independent Regulatory Authority (IRA): CP No. 9/2013-14/T-12023(14)/1/2012- Tariff- Vol - III Annexure II-B Page 5 of 51 5
Page 1 and 2: Annexure II-B CP No. 9/2013-14/T-12
Page 3: ("Authority") was established on iz
Page 7 and 8: Conclusion: The Concession Agreemen
Page 9 and 10: a. Land LeaseAgreement As per Claus
Page 11 and 12: derive any material commercial adva
Page 13 and 14: Regulatory Approaches in Selected C
Page 15: The summary of such analysis is rep
Page 20 and 21: NER A Economic Consulting "Given th
Page 22 and 23: NERA EC() 110 n 11C CO I1
Page 24 and 25: NERA Economic Consul!inS1 In other
Page 26: NERA Economic Consult ing 5. Conclu
Page 29: NERA t:COIIOlJ1IC COllsul:in9 activ
Page 33 and 34: NERA tC Oll 0 rn ic ConsulU nq B.5.
Page 35 and 36: NERA Ecol1omi c Consulung • A dua
Page 38 and 39: NERA Economic Consultinq • Real e
Page 40 and 41: NERA Economic Consulting only at th
Page 42 and 43: NERA Economic Consulting Table 2.1
Page 44 and 45: NERA Economic Consulting 2.5. Germa
Page 46 and 47: NERA Economic Consulting • sub-co
Page 48 and 49: NERA Economic Consulting industrial
Page 50 and 51: NERA Economic Consulti ng 4. Conclu

Annexure II - AERA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?