What Is the Role of the Appellate Committee in an Airports Authority of India NOC Appeal?

Builders, architects and infrastructure companies working near Indian airports often run into one obstacle late in the planning stage: the height clearance No Objection Certificate. When the Designated Officer approves a lower height than requested, or refuses the application altogether, the only formal route forward is an Airports Authority of India NOC appeal filed with the Appellate Committee.

This article explains what the Appellate Committee is, what it does, how the appeal is reviewed, and what outcomes to expect. It also covers the practical steps that reduce delays, based on how the appeal process actually works on the ground in India.

What Is the Appellate Committee?

The Appellate Committee is the designated forum, constituted under the Ministry of Civil Aviation, that hears appeals against decisions taken by AAI’s Designated Officers under the height restriction rules (GSR 751(E)). It sits above the regional and station-level NOC offices and functions as the final departmental authority on disputed height clearances before a matter would need to go to court.

Every civil airport in India has a Designated Officer responsible for evaluating NOC applications submitted through the online NOC Application System (NOCAS). If an applicant, a local municipal body, a town planning authority, or an airport operator disagrees with the height permitted by the Designated Officer, they can escalate the matter to this committee for reconsideration.

This escalation route is central to the AAI NOC appeal process India follows, since it is the only administrative mechanism available before an aggrieved party considers legal recourse.

Roles and Responsibilities

The Appellate Committee’s mandate goes beyond simply approving or rejecting a request. Its core responsibilities include:

• Reviewing the grounds on which the Designated Officer restricted or denied the requested height
• Re-examining site coordinates, elevation data and obstacle limitation surfaces submitted with the original application
• Directing an aeronautical study where the case requires deeper safety assessment before a height can be finalised
• Communicating its decision to the Designated Officer, who then issues a revised NOC based on that ruling
• Periodically updating processing guidelines, such as the framework introduced for plots larger than 5,000 square metres and conjoint building proposals

Because aviation safety around the Obstacle Limitation Surface cannot be compromised, the committee weighs applicant interests against flight safety margins at every stage of review.

The committee also acts as a coordinating body between AAI’s corporate office and its regional NOC offices. Since Designated Officers at Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Guwahati and the other regional offices apply the same height restriction framework, a ruling from the Appellate Committee often influences how similar cases are handled going forward, particularly where a rule interpretation was genuinely ambiguous.

Appeal Review Process

Filing and pursuing an appeal follows a defined sequence. Understanding each stage helps applicants prepare a stronger case and anticipate what the committee will scrutinise.

1. Filing the Appeal

The appeal must be addressed to the Chairman of the Appellate Committee and filed by the owner or lessee of the plot or building, either online through NOCAS or offline with the AAI CHQ NOC section in New Delhi. A non-refundable appeal fee of approximately Rs 2 lakh plus GST applies, payable through the NOCAS gateway or by demand draft in favour of Airports Authority of India.

Offline appeal applications, along with the demand draft and supporting documents, are submitted to the General Manager (ATM-NOC), Airports Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Block-A, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi. Applicants filing online through NOCAS can track the appeal status directly from their dashboard, which is generally the faster and more transparent route.

2. Committee Evaluation Process

Once filed, the appeal and supporting documents are processed by the AAI CHQ NOC section and forwarded to the Appellate Committee. The committee’s evaluation typically covers the copy of the original NOC letter, surveyed site elevation and WGS-84 coordinates certified by an authorised surveyor, and any obstacle or structure details relevant to the disputed height. Where the file raises safety questions the existing data cannot resolve, the committee may order a dedicated aeronautical study, which carries its own fee of roughly Rs 20 lakh plus GST and is conducted as per AAI’s Aeronautical Study Guidelines.

3. Appeal Timeline

AAI does not publish a fixed statutory timeline for the Airports Authority of India NOC appeal to be decided. In practice, straightforward cases with complete documentation move faster, while appeals referred for an aeronautical study take considerably longer because the study itself is a separate, sequential process. Applicants are advised to track status through their NOCAS dashboard and follow up with the AAI CHQ NOC section rather than assuming a default turnaround period.

4. Communication of Outcome

Once a decision is reached, the committee communicates it to the Designated Officer at the relevant regional office, who then issues a revised NOC letter reflecting the ruling. The applicant is notified through NOCAS by email and SMS, consistent with AAI’s paperless processing system.

Decision Outcomes

An appeal before the committee can conclude in a few different ways:

• Appeal allowed: the requested height, or a revised height closer to it, is approved and a fresh NOC is issued.
• Appeal partially allowed: a height between the original approval and the requested height is granted, often with added conditions.
• Referred for aeronautical study: the committee defers a final ruling until a dedicated safety study is completed.
• Appeal rejected: the Designated Officer’s original height restriction is upheld and no revision is granted.

Courts have, in specific circumstances, directed AAI and its Appellate Committee to reconsider or issue an NOC where an applicant had already met previously stipulated conditions in good faith, which underlines why accurate documentation and a clear appeal record matter well beyond the committee stage.

Best Practices Before Filing

A well-prepared appeal moves faster and is less likely to be sent back for clarification. Before filing, it helps to:

• Get updated site elevation and WGS-84 coordinate certification from a surveyor authorised for this purpose, rather than reusing outdated data
• Review the Designated Officer’s original rejection or reduction letter carefully and address each stated ground in the appeal
• Confirm plot size and building configuration against current AAI guidelines, including the 2025 framework for large plots and conjoint buildings
• Budget for the appeal fee and, where relevant, the aeronautical study fee, since both are non-refundable
• Avoid starting construction above the previously approved height until the revised NOC is formally issued
• Keep a compliance consultant or documentation specialist involved from the coordinate-certification stage onward, not only at the point of filing

These steps are also where most of the delay in an AAI NOC appeal process India builders experience actually originates, since incomplete coordinate data or missing certificates are the most common reasons an appeal is returned for correction.

Many project teams choose to bring in dedicated AAI Appeal & Re-evaluation Support at this stage, so that coordinate certification, appeal drafting and the eventual response to any aeronautical study query are handled by one point of contact instead of being split across surveyors, architects and the internal project team.

FAQs

Conclusion

For builders, architects and infrastructure companies operating near Indian airports, understanding how the Appellate Committee works turns a stressful rejection into a manageable process. A well-documented Airports Authority of India NOC appeal, backed by accurate coordinates and a clear response to the Designated Officer’s original grounds, gives a project the best chance of a favourable outcome without unnecessary delay.