G.P. Mittal ORDER
Order under section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
1. The present information has been filed by Airline Operators Committee (AOC), Delhi through its Chairman Shri Gopala Krishnan Nair ('the Informant'/'AOC') under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the 'Act') against Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. (the 'Opposite Party'/'OP'/'DIAL') alleging inter alia contravention of the provisions of section 4 of the Act.
2. Facts, as gathered from the information, may be briefly noted:
3. The Informant is stated to have been established pursuant to the recommendations of International Air Transport Association (IATA) for facilitating the movement and handling of passengers, baggage, cargo, mail etc. for the airlines operating at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. It is also averred that AOC, Delhi, since the setting up, has been carrying on various activities, including activities which are non-aeronautical services and representing and protecting the interest of the airlines in various forums/authorities/statutory bodies. It is stated to be duly authorized in carrying on all the activities on behalf of the airlines in this connection.
4. The Opposite Party i.e., DIAL is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a joint venture consortium of GMR Group, Airport Authority of India, Malaysia Airport and Fraport. It is stated that DIAL entered into an Operation, Management and Development Agreement ('OMDA') with Airport Authority of India on 04.04.2006. The initial term of concession is stated to be 30 years extendable by a further period of 30 years.
5. It is averred that while carrying out its activities in terms of the constitution as recommended by IATA, AOC has been co-ordinating with DIAL and the airlines to ensure and facilitate implementation of various agreements entered into between DIAL and the airlines. By way of illustration, the Informant referred to the agreements entered into between DIAL and Air France. It is stated that similar agreements have been entered into between DIAL and other airlines as well.
6. In this connection, the Informant inter alia made reference to an agreement dated 23.12.2013 entered into between DIAL and Air France for licensing office space with the licence term upto 31.03.2015. It is stated that Air France has paid the licence fee according to the terms of the said agreement for the period ending 31.03.2015.
7. It is alleged that while the agreement dated 23.12.2013 was in force, DIAL sent a letter to Air France stating that the prevailing/applicable licence fee rates for the locations mentioned in the agreement and in possession and custody of Air France shall stand revised w.e.f. 01.04.2015. It is alleged that the licence fee was increased by 100.27% without any consultation or discussion. It is also alleged that on or about April 2015, Air France received an invoice for non-aeronautical services being Invoice No. 4000021051 dated 02.03.2015 (with due date 09.03.2015) requiring Air France to pay an amount of Rs. 2,76,905.60/- based on the increased licence fee.
8. It is further stated that Air France thereafter represented through AOC and by way of letter dated 05.02.2015 and sought clarifications besides objecting to the whimsical and arbitrary increase of the licence fee and also increase in the rentals contrary to the agreement/arrangement and the practice that has been prevailing. AOC and Air France as well as other airlines also objected to the increase in the rentals in an exorbitant and unreasonable manner.
9. It is alleged that the........