8. In this context, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the first respondent / Information Commission would also submit that, during that point of time, it seems that, Special Officer had been appointed to administer the Co-operative Society throughout the State, hence a point was raised before this Court in the said Writ Appeals that, in view of the appointment of Special Officer, who is the Government Official having been appointed by the State Government to administer the Co-operative Society in the absence of elected body, it is fully controlled only by the State Government through its official and therefore, the Society atleast for the time being, so long as the Special Officer administering the Society, would come within the purview of the provisions of the Right to Information Act in view of the definitions made in the Act under Section 2(h). The learned counsel would further contend that, though such a plea was raised on behalf of the Information Seeker, the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment has rejected that plea also, by stating that, the law having been declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2013) 16 SCC 82, still holds good, merely because the Special Officer is administering the Society, the position and character of the Society is not changed as it is not substantially financed by the Government, therefore the said argument was also rejected by following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and accordingly, the Division Bench of this Court once again reiterated the same, by following the aforesaid dictum.
