Issues raised in respect of supply of information regarding Aarogya Setu App and its creation are of considerable public importance, the Delhi High Court said on Tuesday while hearing a plea against denial of information about the app under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act)..A single-judge Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh, therefore, issued notice to the Central government and RTI authorities seeking their response to the plea (Saurav Das vs CPIO, NeGD & Ors)..The petition by Saurav Das challenged an order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) refusing to direct supply of information under RTI Act on creation of the Aarogya Setu. .Das had filed several RTI applications before various authorities including National Informatics Centre, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and National E-Governance Division seeking details pertaining to the creation of Aarogya Setu app. .He had sought information with respect to the origin of the app, the approval details, communications with private people involved in making/developing the app, internal notes, memos, file notings, and minutes of the meetings held while creating the app, among other information..However, the response given to the RTI application was that the authorities had no information about the details sought by the petitioner..How is there no information about creation of the app?: CIC issues show cause notice to officials for evasive reply to RTI on Aarogya Setu .Finding that the response given to his RTI application was evasive, the petitioner approached the CIC under Section 18 of the RTI Act for initiation of appropriate proceedings against the errant RTI officials. .Subsequently, a show cause was issued to the officials concerned for prima facie obstruction of information and providing an evasive reply to an RTI application. .The petitioner's grievance was directed against the CIC order passed on November 24 by virtue of which not only the show cause notices issued to the officials were discharged but the RTI application was also effectively disposed of with the observation that “there was sufficient information regarding the app in the public domain”. .Before the High Court, the petitioner, through advocate Vrinda Bhandari, primarily argued that the impugned order cannot be sustained as the petitioner was not afforded any hearing and the CIC simply accepted the authorities' submission on the data with respect to the creation of Aarogya Setu being in public domain. .Advocate Rahul Sharma, appearing for the Centre and the RTI officials, contended that all documents pertaining to the Aarogya Setu app, which are already in public domain, have been furnished to the petitioner pursuant to the CIC order. .He added that there are no "file notings" or "files" as sought by the petitioner on account of the fact that all correspondences are virtual..Sharma reiterated that all information with respect to Aarogya setu was already public. .During the course of the hearing, the Court observed that the "moral of the story was that no data (as sought by the petitioner) was given". It also added that the manner in which the impugned order was passed by the CIC, without hearing the petitioner, has to be examined. .The Court also remarked that the contrast between the two orders passed by CIC-- one issuing show cause to the petitioner and the other discharging the show cause -- was very stark. .While listing the matter for hearing on February 24, the Court asked the petitioner and the respondents to file a chart listing the information sought in the RTI application and the information that has been given.