Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.

1. The appellant has instituted this appeal under Section 42 of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 against an order passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as "the Forum") on 10.4.2008. Admittedly, in passing the impugned orders, the Forum was exercising powers under Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

.2. At the outset, Counsel for the respondent has taken an objection to the maintainability of the appeal itself. He submits that since the impugned order was passed by the Forum under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, any appeal against an order of that Forum can only lie with the Ombudsman in terms of Section 42(6) and (7) of that Act, and the institution of the present appeal before this Court under Section 42 of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 instead, is misconceived.

3. The essence of the argument put forward by the learned Counsel for the respondent is that Section 42 of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 envisages an appeal only by a person aggrieved of any decision or order of the Commission passed under that Act. The expression, "commission", has also been defined under Section 2(c) of that Act to mean the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission mentioned under Section 3 in part-II thereof. He submits that the impugned decision in the instant matter is admittedly of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, which is an entirely different body and cannot be substituted by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, envisaged under Section 42 of the Delhi Electricity Reform Act, 2000.

4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent deserves to be accepted. In fact, Section 42 of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 refers only to the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission and none other. This is also borne out from Section 3(1) of that Act which categorically states that the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission shall hereinafter he referred to as "the commission" in that Act. For that reason also, it follows that the reference to "the commission" under Section 42 of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000, must necessarily be confined only to the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission and cannot include within its ambit the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum envisaged under the Electricity Act 2003, more so, when the latter is a completely different enactment altogether. In addition, even Section 11 of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000, makes it very clear that functions of the Commission envisaged under that Act are quite different from the functions carried out by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum established under the Electricity Act, 2003.

.5. Furthermore, Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, envisages establishment of a Forum for redressal of the grievance of consumers. It is this forum which has admittedly passed the impugned order in the case at hand. Learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the order of a Single Judge of this court passed on 14.1.2008 in Writ Petition No. 321/2008 filed by the appellant whereby this court declined to entertain the writ petition in view of the establishment of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, this order recognizes the right of the appellant to file the instant appeal in case he is dis-satisfied with the decision of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. He says that it is for that reason that the appellant has approached this court. To my mind, the aforesaid order dated 14.01.2008 passed in Writ petition No. 321/2008, which has been annexed by the appellant, does not lay down any such proposition. It merely declines to entertain the writ petition in view of the existence of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum envisaged under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. It further states that keeping in view the nature of th