JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - On the second call also, the learned counsel for the applicant has not appeared. 2. Mr. Rishikesh Giri, the learned counsel represents the respondent-State of Jharkhand. 3. The learned State counsel submits that not only the present application is not maintainable, it is frivolous and therefore, warrants exemplary cost upon the applicant. 4. Previously also, the applicant has gone unrepresented. On 08.03.2017 and 27.04.2017 the petitioner was not represented through his counsel. By order dated 27.04.2017 the following direction was issued by this Court: "Today again the counsel for the applicant is absent. Averments in this application give an impression as if this application has been preferred for expunging the adverse remarks made against the counsel for the applicant vide order dated 28.11.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No.260 of 2015, however, in the prayer portion the petitioner is seeking review of the said order on merits. The averments made in this application are, prima-facie, contemptuous. In support of the application an affidavit has been filed by the writ petitioner. Registry to issue notice to the petitioner at his address disclosed in the affidavit, for his appearance on 23.06.2017. The Registry is directed to produce photo-copy of the visitor''s-register for 28.11.2016 when W.P.(S) No. 260 of 2015 was listed for hearing to ascertain first, whether the petitioner was present in the Court on the said date or not. Post the matter on 23.06.2017." 5. However, in absence of the petitioner no order on merits should be passed and accordingly, this application is dismissed in default.