JUDGMENT : RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. 1. The application to restore the appeal to file is not opposed and is, therefore, ordered. 2. This appeal is preferred by the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No.1820 of 2010 dated 10.04.2015. The appellant herein invoked the jurisdiction of this Court assailing the order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Uttarakhand on Representation No. 07 of 2009 dated 07.06.2010. 3. The respondent-Sugar Company installed a Check Meter in its factory premises on 20.05.2007, and a second Check Meter on 23.06.2007. It is the case of the appellant that the old original meter installed in the sugar factory premises was recording 72.96% less consumption. Consequently, the old meter was removed from the factory premises on 18.08.2007. The respondent –sugar company was directed to pay Rs.66,22,842/-for the period from 15.01.2004 to 18.08.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-sugar company approached the Electricity Grievance Redressal Forum constituted under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “2003 Act”). The respondent’s claim petition was dismissed by order dated 19.03.2009. The respondent, thereafter, submitted a representation to the Electricity Ombudsman constituted under Section 42(6) of the 2003 Act. In the order, impugned in the writ petition, the learned Ombudsman observed that, though the original meter was installed in the sugar factory premises on 15.01.2004 and the first check meter was installed on 20.05.2007, there was nothing before the Assessing Officer to come to the conclusion that the original meter was running slow right from 15.01.2004; and further, as per Regulation No.3.1.3 (6) of the Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code), Regulations 2007, the Assessing Officer could assess the loss, due to slow running of the meter, for a maximum period of six months and not beyond. The learned Ombudsman, therefore, directed the Assessing Officer to make assessment afresh. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant herein invoked the jurisdiction of this Court and, on the writ petition being dismissed, has now preferred this intra-court appeal. 6. Mr. The learned Ombudsman, therefore, directed the Assessing Officer to make assessment afresh. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant herein invoked the jurisdiction of this Court and, on the writ petition being dismissed, has now preferred this intra-court appeal. 6. Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-sugar company, would submit that, in view of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in M/s Amrit Versha Udyog (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Uttaranchal Power Corporation Limited and others, 2018 (2) U.D. 22, an intra-court appeal, under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the “1952 Rules”), is not maintainable. On the other hand Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that, unlike in M/s Amrit Versha Udyog (Pvt.) Ltd. where the consumer had invoked the remedy of an intra-court appeal, it is the Corporation (licensee) which has now sought to avail the remedy of an intra-court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the 1952 Rules; the consumer alone, and not the licensee, has the remedy of approaching the Electricity Ombudsman constituted under Section 42(6) of the 2003 Act; it is only because a consumer is entitled to approach the Electricity Ombudsman in the first instance, and thereafter to this Court, would an intra-court appeal not lie against an order passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the consumer’s prayer for grant of relief; unlike a consumer, the appellant-Corporation cannot approach the Electricity Ombudsman under Section 42(6) of the 2003 Act and, consequently, their only remedy against the order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman is to first approach the learned Single Judge and, thereafter, to avail the remedy of an intra-court appeal; and the appellant-Corporation cannot, therefore, be deprived of its right to question the order of the learned Single Judge in an intra-court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the 1952 Rules. 7. 7. In M/s Amrit Versha Udyog (Pvt.) Ltd., a Division Bench of this Court observed that the Ombudsman, constituted under the Electricity Act, was a Tribunal as it was called up to decide a lis raised by a consumer; the fact that it was not open to the distribution licensee to challenge the order, of the consumer forum, before the Electricity Ombudsman and the right to make a representation is conferred exclusively on the consumer, did not detract from the fact that the Ombudsman was a Tribunal; and, since the Ombudsman was acting under the Act as a Tribunal, no further appeal lay from the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the 1952 Rules relates to “Special Appeal” and, thereunder, an appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court, and not being an order made in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction or in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award of a purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. 9. The Electricity Act, 2003, whereunder the Electricity Ombudsman is constituted, is a Central Act. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in M/s Amrit Versha Udyog (Pvt.) Ltd., has held that the Electricity Ombudsman is a Tribunal, and the order passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting a challenge to the order of such a Tribunal would not fall within the ambit of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the 1952 Rules. In the light of the law declared by the co-ordinate Division Bench, no intra-court appeal would lie against the order passed by the learned Single Judge either affirming or setting aside the order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman. 10. The contention urged before us by Mr. In the light of the law declared by the co-ordinate Division Bench, no intra-court appeal would lie against the order passed by the learned Single Judge either affirming or setting aside the order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman. 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.) 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.