JUDGMENT : Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This is the second contempt petition filed by the petitioner this time in relation to the order passed on 19.1.2012 in M.J.C. No. 2455 of 2011. 2. The aforesaid contempt application was disposed of with the observation that summary enquiry without recourse to any statutory proceeding cannot be effective in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and hence, liberty was granted to the petitioner, if so advised, to pursue his remedy in accordance with law through appropriate proceeding before statutory authorities or before the competent court of law. 3. From a perusal of the contempt application, it appears that the petitioner has failed to avail the appropriate proceeding either before the statutory authorities or before a competent court of law in the matter and has again filed a representation before the respondent authorities of the State and thereafter filed the present contempt application. 4. The present contempt application is not maintainable in view of the nature of the order dated 19.1.2012 passed in M.J.C. No. 2455 of 2011. The contempt application is, accordingly, dismissed.