2025:UHC:2950-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS SPA/604/2015 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate for the appellants. 2. Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondent. Restoration Application (MCC No. 13364 of 2025) 3. Restoration Application is filed within time. No objection to the Restoration Application is filed by respondent. 4. For the reasons indicated, we allow the Restoration Application. Order dated 23.04.2025 passed by this Court is hereby recalled and the Special Appeal is restored to its original number. 5. This intra-court appeal is filed by Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. challenging judgment dated 09.01.2015, rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in WPMS No. 692 of 2009. By the said judgment, challenge to the order passed by Electricity Ombudsman under Section 42 (6) of Electricity Act, 2003 by the appellants, was repelled. Feeling aggrieved by dismissal of its writ petition, Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. has filed this Appeal. 6. Learned counsel for respondent submits that as per Electricity Act, 2003, any consumer, who has a grievance 2025:UHC:2950-DB regarding power tariff can approach redressal forum constituted under Section 42(5) of the said Act and order passed by Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum is appealable before Electricity Ombudsman, constituted under Section 42(6) of the said Act. Thus, he submits that order passed by Electricity Ombudsman is not amenable to the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and as per provision contained in Chapter VIII Rule 5 of High Court Rules, an intra-court appeal is not maintainable against a judgment rendered by learned Single Judge in exercise of its supervisory powers or powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. 7. Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondent submits that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Special Appeal No. 444 of 2015 has taken similar view that the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge, whereby writ petition challenging the order passed by Electricity Ombudsman was dismissed, would not be appealable before a Division Bench, in view of provision contained in Chapter VIII Rule 5 of High Court Rules. He further submits that the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench was affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 05.07.2019, passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 19645/2019. Paragraph Nos. 10 & 11 of the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench in Special Appeal No. 444 of 2015 are extracted below:- “10. The contention urged before us by Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation, that, unlike a consumer, the appellant Corporation does not have the right to approach the Electricity Ombudsman was also considered by the Division Bench in M/s Amrit Versha Udyog (Pvt.) 2025:UHC:2950-DB Ltd. In Paragraph No.32 of its judgment, the Division Bench had held that the judicial power of the State was being exercised by the Ombudsman, and it was a Tribunal; while a writ petition would lie before the learned Single Judge against the order of the Tribunal, Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the 1952 Rules excludes an intra-court appeal in cases where the learned Single Judge has either affirmed or set-aside the order passed by the Tribunal (in the present case the Electricity Ombudsman). 11. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the appellant, would place reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Unnao vs. Electricity Ombudsman, Lucknow & others, 2010 SCC Online All. 2686, a copy of which has not even been placed before us. Reference is made by the learned counsel to the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (MS) No.201 of 2012 dated 25.09.2018, wherein the Allahabad High Court judgment is referred to. It is wholly unnecessary for us to dwell on this issue since the judgments of the Allahabad High Court, rendered after 09.11.2000 when the State of Uttarakhand came into being, would only have persuasive value. Since this question has already been decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Amrit Versha Udyog (Pvt.) Ltd., it is the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court that binds us. Following the law laid down by the Division Bench, in M/s Amrit Versha Udyog (Pvt.) Ltd., we hold that the appeal preferred by the appellant-Corporation is not maintainable, as it does not fall within the ambit of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the 1952 Rules. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” 8. Having regard to the aforesaid legal position, this intra-court appeal would not be maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Subhash Upadhyay, .J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, .J.) 18.06.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487d f006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA8 75643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.06.20 10:24:25 +05'30'