JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Mohammad Affan, Advocate holding brief of Shri G.M. Kamil, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ambedkar Nagar dated 30.04.2010 thereby he has allowed the claim preferred by respondent nos. 2 to 6 with regard to the payment of compensation for the potatoes stored in the warehouse owned by the petitioner. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is a partnership firm, consisting of four partners and is running a cold storage unit in the name & style of M/s Haji Ramzan Abdul Rauf Cold Storage Unit-II. It has further been stated that for running the said cold storage the petitioner had obtained the necessary licence/permission from the appropriate authority/Licensing Authority and is doing the business of storing the agricultural produces, which are grown by the local farmers such as potatoes etc. For the year 2008, the petitioner had stored the potatoes, which was brought by the local farmers/respondent nos. 2 to 6 and issued a receipt of deposit. In the said receipt, the conditions were mentioned and also the validity of the said storage. The potatoes are usually are taken out by the farmers till the end of September every year but in September 2008, the rates of potatoes was very low and therefore, respondent nos. 2 to 6 did not turn up to take the potatoes, which continued to be stored in the cold storage owned by the petitioner. It seems that due to the fact that the potatoes were stored for longer length of time, the same were deteriorated and consequently, due to the damage occurred to the said storage, respondent nos. 2 to 6 preferred a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ambedkar Nagar. On being served a notice the petitioner had appeared before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ambedkar Nagar but he did not file any written objections. Thereafter the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum after considering the material on record and the evidence adduced by respondent nos. 2 to 6 returned the finding that respondent nos. On being served a notice the petitioner had appeared before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ambedkar Nagar but he did not file any written objections. Thereafter the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum after considering the material on record and the evidence adduced by respondent nos. 2 to 6 returned the finding that respondent nos. 2 to 6 had deposited their potatoes in the cold storage owned by the petitioner and also took into account the published rate and its value and the value of bags and accordingly valued the potatoes for all the private respondents. The Forum concluded that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner due to which the potatoes were destroyed and allowed the claim of the private respondents directing the petitioner to pay the value of the goods as per the said judgment. It also imposed cost arising from mental physical and financial loss caused and also the cost of said litigation. 4. In the present petition the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, for the claim with regard to the destruction of potatoes, the same issue has to be dealt under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Cold Storage Act, 1976. Section 24 provides for compensation for loss, destruction etc., while according to Section 25, the dispute regarding the compensation is to be referred to the Licensing Officer. 5. It is stated that the dispute pertaining to destruction of potatoes by the cold storage have to be considered and decided only as per the provisions of Section 24 and 25 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Cold Storage Act, 1976. When a pointed query has been made to the petitioner, as to whether despite the fact that he participated in the said proceedings before the District Forum, whether he had raised any objections in this regard or not? The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that though the petitioner participated in the said proceedings but the said objection was never filed or raised by him. Though one objection has been annexed along with the writ petition, which is undated but certainly the same has not been filed before the District Forum as the impugned order clearly states that no objection was filed by the petitioner. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. Though one objection has been annexed along with the writ petition, which is undated but certainly the same has not been filed before the District Forum as the impugned order clearly states that no objection was filed by the petitioner. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. It has been submitted that private respondents falls within the definition of "consumer" as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and there is clearly evidence that the petitioner had been negligent in storage of the potatoes and consequently, it cannot be said that the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum did not have any jurisdiction to decide the dispute. He further submits that it is not a case where there is patent lack of jurisdiction by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. The issue of jurisdiction was never agitated before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum and was never informed about the special mechanism enacted by the Uttar Pradesh Regulation Cold Storage Act, 1976 and consequently, the petitioner is estopped from taking the objection for the first time in the writ petition. 7. He further submits that once the petitioner had appeared and participated in the proceedings before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum then he would be deemed to have given up his objection to the applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Cold Storage Act, 1976 with regard to the jurisdiction created therein and has voluntary submitted to the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum and consequently, cannot turn around and the challenge the same in the writ petition. 8. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 9. The only question raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is with regard to the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum while entertaining the dispute pertaining to destruction of the potatoes in the cold storage. According to the petitioner, the said dispute had to be decided as per the provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh Regulation Cold Storage Act, 1976 more specifically under Section 24 and 25, where there is provision for grant of compensation by referring the dispute to the Licensing Officer and further that an appeal has also been provided under Section 36 against the order passed by Licensing Officer. 10. In the present case, respondent nos. 10. In the present case, respondent nos. 2 to 6 had stored their potatoes in the cold storage owned by the petitioner and due to certain defects in the working of the cold storage, the said potatoes were damages and consequently, the private respondent nos. 2 to 6 had claimed compensation from the petitioner on account of such damage. Though there is no doubt that a special mechanism for redressal of the said dispute has been provided for under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation Cold Storage Act, 1976, but on the other hand, the said dispute also fell within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, inasmuch as, the private respondents fell within the definition of consumer and the dispute raised also fell within the definition of consumer dispute. It was open for the petitioner to have raised a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum at the earliest but he submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum and participated in the proceedings therein without raising any objection as to its jurisdiction. 11. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that once the petitioner had submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, and participated in the proceedings, he cannot turn around and question its jurisdiction for the first time in the writ petition. There is no denying the fact that the petitioner had appeared and participated in the proceedings before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum and no such objection was taken by him therein. On the other hand, it is noticed that the dispute as raised by the private respondents no. 2 to 6 fell within the four corners of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, consequently, it cannot be said that the there was patent lack of jurisdiction by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum while deciding the said dispute. 12. Ordinarily, When more than one remedy is available to a party in respect of the same grievance, it is open for that party to elect or to choose his remedy. Once he chooses his remedy, all incidents attached to that remedy must follow. 13. 12. Ordinarily, When more than one remedy is available to a party in respect of the same grievance, it is open for that party to elect or to choose his remedy. Once he chooses his remedy, all incidents attached to that remedy must follow. 13. In the present case, the petitioner has elected to move to the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum for grievance redressal under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, though, a parallel remedy is available under Section 24 of Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Cold Storage Act, 1976 claim compensation by referring the dispute to the Licensing Officer appointed under the said act. 14. The Court is of the view that both the parallel remedies are equally efficacious and provide similar relief. The respondents 2 to 6, being the aggrieved persons, have right to choose the remedy they prefer to avail and petitioner shall be bound by the same. 15. Mere presence of an alternate/parallel remedy does not render the relief given by the earlier forum invalid or without jurisdiction. This principle is in compliance with demand of public policy that an aggrieved person has a right to choose the forum for redressal of his grievance, when two forums are available in respect of the same subject matter for the same relief. In case, if the party is allowed to select multiple remedies in multiple forums and courts, there will obviously be multiplicity of litigation and there is every chance and likelihood that the judgments and/or orders may also be conflicting with each other. 16. It is now well-settled that the High Courts while exercising their equity jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution may not exercise the same in appropriate cases. While exercising such jurisdiction, the superior courts in India even may not strike down a wrong order only because it would be lawful to do so. A discretionary relief may be refused to be extended to the Appellant in a given case although the Court may find the same to be justified in law. [See S.D.S. Shipping (P) Ltd. Vs. Jay Container Services Co. (P) Ltd and others (2003) 9 SCC 439 ]. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a large number of decisions including High Court of Judicature at Bombay through Registrar and Another Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta (Dead) through Lrs. [See S.D.S. Shipping (P) Ltd. Vs. Jay Container Services Co. (P) Ltd and others (2003) 9 SCC 439 ]. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a large number of decisions including High Court of Judicature at Bombay through Registrar and Another Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta (Dead) through Lrs. and another [ (2003) 2 SCC 390 ], N.K. Prasad Vs. Government of India and others (2004) 6 SCC 299 , para 26], Inder Prakash Gupta Vs. State of J & K and others [ (2004) 6 SCC 786 , para 42] and Board of Control For Cricket in India and another Vs. Netaji Cricket Club and others [ (2005) 4 SCC 741 , para 102]. 17. That, however, is not to say that the jurisdiction will be exercised whenever there is an error of law. The High Courts do not act as Courts of appeal under Article 226. The powers are purely discretionary and though no limits can be placed upon that discretion it must be exercised along recognised lines and not arbitrarily; and one of the limitations imposed by the Courts on, themselves is that they will not exercise jurisdiction in this class of case unless substantial injustice has ensued, or is likely to ensue. The High Court cannot be turned into Courts of appeal or revision to set right mere errors of law which do not occasion injustice in a broad and general sense, for, though no legislature can impose limitations on these constitutional powers it is a sound exercise of discretion to bear in mind the policy of the legislature to have disputes about these special rights decided as speedily as may be. Therefore, writ petitions should not be lightly entertained in this class of case. 18. It is in the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that where the authority or tribunal does not lack patent jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and when the petitioner participated in the proceedings without demur or raising any objection to its jurisdiction, they may not be permitted to raise for the first time in writ proceedings. Accordingly, this Court declines to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ambedkar Nagar. 19. For the reasons as stated above, this writ petition is dismissed. 20. Accordingly, this Court declines to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ambedkar Nagar. 19. For the reasons as stated above, this writ petition is dismissed. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that on merits he may be granted liberty to assail the order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ambedkar Nagar before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and counsel for the respondents do not object to the prayer made by the petitioner. Considering the fact that this Court has only looked into the aspect of the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum for entertaining the dispute peculiar fact in the present case, it is provided that the petitioner, if so advised, may file an appeal against the impugned order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ambedkar Nagar, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow within next three weeks. In case the appeal is filed, the same shall be considered on merits in accordance with law.