ABDUL MOIN, J.

1. We have heard Sri B.C. Rai, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri J.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra and Ms. Aprajita Bansal, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.1 & 2, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel representing respondent No.5 and Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India along with Ms. Nandita Bharati, Advocate representing the Union of India- respondent No.6.

2. The present reference before the Full Bench has been occasioned by a referring order of a Division Bench dated 20.01.2016. The Division Bench upon noticing that there was a conflict between the decisions of the Division Bench in the case of M/s Jindal Poly Films Limited vs. U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, Lucknow and others in Writ Petition No.2456 (MB) of 2011 decided on 15.04.2011 and the judgment of Single Judge in the case of Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited vs. Vidyut Lokpal Lucknow and others in Writ Petition No.4237 (MS) of 2008 as well as another judgment by Single Judge in the case of Pachimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited vs. Electricity Ombudsman and others in Writ Petition No.6411 (MS) of 2012 and being of the view that the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of M/s Jindal Poly Films Limited requires reconsideration keeping in view the provisions of Section 42 (5) (6) and (7) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2003') has referred the following questions of law for decision:-

"(I) In view of the provisions of sub-sections (5), (6) and (7) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003, under which a consumer who is aggrieved by non-redressal of his grievance is permitted to make a representation before the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman is required to settle the grievance of the consumer, whether Regulation 8.1(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum & Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2007 is ultra vires the provisions of the Act;

(II) Whether the judgment of the Division Bench in M/s Jindal Poly Films Ltd. vs. U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, Lucknow decided on 15 April 2011 can be regarded as laying down the correct principle of law."

3. While dealing with the questions which have been framed for consideration by the Full Bench, it would be convenient to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 along with the Regulations of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum & Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations, 2007') which are set out below:-

4. The "Area of Supply" has been defined under Section 2(3) of the Act, 2003, as under:-

"area of supply" means the area within which a Distribution Licensee is authorised by his licence to supply electricity;

5. The "Consumer" under the provisions of the Act, 2003 has been defined in Section 2(15) of the Act, 2003, as under:-

"consumer" means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a Licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a Licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be;

6. A "Distribution Licensee" has been defined under Section 2(17) of the Act, 2003, as under:-

"Distribution Licensee" means a Licensee authorised to operate and maintain a distribution system for supplying electricity to the consumers in his area of supply;

7. A "Licensee" has been defined under Section 2 (39) of the Act, 2003, as under:-

"Licensee" means a person who has been granted a licence under section 14;

8. 'Rules" have been defined under Section 2 (59) of the Act, 2003 as "rules" means rules made under the Act.

9. The "State Commission" h