ORDER : Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The same petitioner approached this Court in WPC No. 2075/2016 inter-alia alleging that without confirmation of sale in terms of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in respect of E-auction sale held on 07.04.2016 by the same respondent Bank for the same property, Bank is insisting upon payment of balance 75% amount and intends to forfeit 25% of the Bid amount. That writ petition was disposed of on 22.04.2016 after recording the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, on instruction, that sale certificate would be issued in favour of the petitioner without any delay, who has been declared to be the highest bidder and is supposed to deposit the balance 75% amount within a period of 15 days of E-auction sale that would expire on 22.04.2016. In such circumstances, this Court observed that it is up to the petitioner to deposit the balance 75% amount by 27.04.2016, whereupon the respondent Bank would issue sale certificate without any delay. 3. Now the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ application alleging that E-auction sale held on 07.04.2016 in respect of the same property, has been undertaken on a misrepresentation by the respondent Bank as no sale of the leasehold property can be executed by the respondent Bank. Property in question stands leased out to one Bijay Kumar Pandey in tripartite lease deed executed on 02.09.2005 with the Jharkhand State Housing Board. The lease period is of 90 years after deducting the period of lease already enjoyed by the third party in the lease deed namely, Manoj Bihari Sinha, the original allottee. The property therefore, could not have been auction sold without consent of the Jharkhand State Housing Board. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has read out the E-auction sale notice which specifies in bold letters that auction is for realisation of the mortgaged assets of the borrower under the SARFESI Act by sale of the same on “As is where is basis”. This is a clear misrepresentation on the part of the respondent Bank leading to the entire auction being vitiated. Therefore, prayer has been made for quashing of the auction notice dated 01.03.2016 and also refund of the bid amount of 25% deposited by the petitioner along with the cost of litigation etc. 5. This is a clear misrepresentation on the part of the respondent Bank leading to the entire auction being vitiated. Therefore, prayer has been made for quashing of the auction notice dated 01.03.2016 and also refund of the bid amount of 25% deposited by the petitioner along with the cost of litigation etc. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the petitioner participated with his eyes and ears open at the time of auction and as a matter of fact, there is no misrepresentation in E-auction notice. Clause-20 thereof specifically provides for inspection of the property by the intending bidders who may contact the respondent Bank at the concerned Branch. It is submitted that there has been no objection from the respondent Jharkhand State Housing Board any time during course of the SARFESI proceeding leading to E-auction of mortgaged property of the borrower. From the E-auction notice itself, it is clear that it is being sold on “as is where is basis”. Petitioner has earlier approached this Court with an intent and purpose to deposit the balance 75% of the amount on which this Court has granted indulgence to do so by 27.04.2016. He should therefore be denied the discretionary remedy by this Court as he appears to be using the forum of Court becoming wise one after the other. Learned counsel for the respondent Bamk further submits that once auction sale is executed, remaining act on the part of the Jharkhand State Housing Board for transfer of lease in favour of the petitioner, is also to be undertaken with cooperation of the respondent Bank. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has again referred to E-auction notice and submits that the opening paragraph thereof are very clear that the transfer is not through the lease, but through sale of the property described therein which again is misleading and shows acquisition of the mortgaged property by the Bank through Sale Deed dated 02.09.2005 in the name of Bijay Kumar Pandey. Therefore, interference may be made in the impugned notice suffering from various misrepresentation. 7. Learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Housing Board, at this stage, has no instruction to submit. 8. I have considered the submissions of the parties in the light of the relevant material facts pleaded and referred to herein-above. Therefore, interference may be made in the impugned notice suffering from various misrepresentation. 7. Learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Housing Board, at this stage, has no instruction to submit. 8. I have considered the submissions of the parties in the light of the relevant material facts pleaded and referred to herein-above. As is apparent from the E-auction sale notice (Annexure-1) itself, property in question is being auctioned on “As is where is basis”. There is no misrepresentation, so far that is concerned. Any interested bidder is expected to apprise himself of the status of the property for which a specific provision of Clause-20 has also been made in the same E-auction notice. Bidders in any such auction notice are supposed to participate with their eyes and ears open. In any case, if the property in question was under mortgage with the respondent Bank, it is entitled under the provisions of SARFESI Act to realise its outstanding debts through means provided under the Act of 2002 including auction sale of such property. Auction by the respondent bank in putting the said property on auction sale, cannot be said to be suffering from any legal errors. Auction is being held in respect of the property on “As is where is basis” and the petitioner who has consciously participated with his eye and ears open, should not be allowed to raise question mark over the exercise of auction sale undertaken after compliance of the relevant provisions of SARFESI Act. 9. As is evident, petitioner has himself approached this Court invoking the discretionary remedy of this Court for issuance of sale certificate and confirmation of sale where the Bank was insisting upon deposit of balance 75% of the amount within a period of 15 days from the date of E-auction. Based upon the categorical submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, the writ petition WPC No. 2075/2016 has been disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to deposit the balance 75% of the amount by 27.04.2016 i.e. by tomorrow and thereafter, Bank would issue sale certificate without any delay. 10. Based upon the categorical submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, the writ petition WPC No. 2075/2016 has been disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to deposit the balance 75% of the amount by 27.04.2016 i.e. by tomorrow and thereafter, Bank would issue sale certificate without any delay. 10. In the aforesaid background of facts and previous conscious act of the petitioner to fructify the sale of auctioned property by deposit of balance 75% of the amount by the designated date, petitioner should not be allowed indulgence now to question the E-auction held for the said property through the present writ petition. It goes without saying that on deposit of such balance amount by the petitioner and issuance of sale certificate, respondent Bank would take all steps within its capacity to ensure that final lease in respect of the property in question is executed in the name of the present petitioner through the Jharkhand State Housing Board on payment of usual charges to be borne by the purchaser. Therefore, this Court is disinclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Petition dismissed.