ICT-BD [ICT-21] Miscellaneous Case No. 01 of 2014 Order: 02 December 2014 II. Argument on behalf of the Contemnor [Maintainability, delay in brining application by third party] 13. Mr. Mustafizur Rahman Khan the learned counsel defending the contemnor argued that the Tribunal set up under the Act of 9173 is not a ‘court of record’ and as such does not have jurisdiction to punish by drawing contempt proceeding 14. Mr. Mustafizur Rahman Khan the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contemnor argued that the application suffers from significant delay as there has been a ‘time gap’ between circulation of alleged articles and bringing application. None including any of prosecutors or member of investigation agency felt it necessary to bring those into notice of the Tribunal, during that time. 15. Mr. Khan next argued that the application has been initiated by a third party having no locus standi, Neither the Act of 1973 nor the ROP permits it. As such the application is not maintainable. 16. It has been further argued by Mr. Khan the learned counsel defending the contemnor that his client initiated the alleged criticism on ‘good faith’ and in the ‘interest of public’. Criticism made in the two articles relates to post-judgment criticism which was quite ‘fair’ and permissible and it did not impute any disparaging impression in the mind of public. 17. By citing the decision in the case of Akhtaruzzaman v Hamidul Huq DLR 2004 73, at p. 82, para 11 the learned counsel Mr. Mustafizur Rahman Khan defending the contemnor submitted that power of contempt is an extra ordinary power and it should be used in an extraordinary situation which warrants intervention from the court of law. This power is to be used sparingly. III. Argument on behalf of the Applicant 18. Argument advanced by Mr. Mr. Mizan Sayeed for the applicant may be summarized as below: 5