ORDER : The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents in withholding the payments to be made to the petitioner company in relation to the works executed by the petitioner company pursuant to the agreement No.17/2017-18 relating to the 6th respondent vide letters C. No WF13/2013-14/R/ROB/YLM/A2/2019 dated 16.8. 2019 and the consequential letter addressed by the 5th respondent to the 6th respondent dated 17.3.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and further direct the respondents not to stop the payments in relation to agreement No.17/2017-18 and pass”. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: 2. Brief facts of the case of the review, in pursuance of the tender notification issued by the 2nd respondent in relation to construction of ROB (Road Over Bridge) at Yelamanchili, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner company was awarded the said work vide agreement No.13/2013-14 dated 27.05.2013. The petitioner company has executed the said work within a period of twenty four (24) months i.e. 27.05.2013. The date on which the site was handed over to the petitioner. The total value of the work is about Rs.18,73,55,796/-. Apart from the said work, certain additional works were also indentified and accordingly supplementary agreements were executed to the tune of approximately about 4.58 crores. The petitioner has executed the works approximately worth of Rs.15.95 crores. But however, due to certain reasons i.e. Seemandhra Strike, Phailin Cyclone, and certain design changes in formation level and shortage of sand sue to the change of sand policy of the Government. There was some delay in execution of the said work, as such the petitioner made a representation explaining all his difficulties vide letter dated 23.12.2015. Considering the said representation the respondents are granted first extension up to 26.05.2017. 3. Meanwhile, the petitioner has brought to the notice of the respondent regarding the specification in relation to the construction of the RE walls are not suitable and suggested for construction of retaining walls with Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC) vide letter dated 22.07.2015 and for completing the balance work, the respondents have to enter into fresh agreement because of the change of scope of the work. In view of the change circumstances, the petitioners have again sought for explanation of the work up to 26.12.2017. They have received a letter dated 11.08.2017, from the 4th respondent stating that the EOT proposals upto 26.12.2017 were forwarded to the 3rd respondent vide letter dated 25.05.2017 and the EOT is awaited. It was also stated that the designs and drawings for constructions of retaining walls (RCC) in place of RE walls in approach was approved by the competent authority on 10.08.2017 and also no hurdle to start the balance work. 4. A specific case of the petitioner is that, though the drawings were approved by the competent authority on 10.08.2017, no such drawings are communicated/ furnished to the petitioner. 5. While the matter being so, instead of either entering into a fresh supplementary agreement or extending further time as requested by the petitioner, the respondent issued a fresh tender notification in relation to the same subject work, showing the balance estimated work as Rs.8,71,24,980/- on 25.10.2017. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that, even without terminating the petitioner’s agreement pursuant to the notice dated 06.10.2017, the respondents again issued a fresh tender notification in relation to the same subject. But, however an order dated 20.10.2017 has been issued to the petitioner on 06.11.2017, as per which the petitioner’s contract is determined since the petitioner failed to mobilize men and material to complete the balance work. 7. Aggrieved by the said order dated 20.10.2017, the petitioner’s Company filed WP.No.37494 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 09.11.2017, permitting the respondents to proceed with the process of the tender. But, however directed not to confirm the same in favour of the third party until three weeks. Aggrieved by the said order the respondents filed WA.No.108 of 2018, in which the Division Bench of this Court had permitted the respondents to proceed with the tender. Accordingly, the respondents proceeded to allot the work in favour of the third party. As the petitioner is also executing the work under the jurisdiction of the 6th respondent at various other places. A letter dated 05.03.2020 was addressed by the 6th respondent to the 5th respondent informing him to stop the payments to the petitioner’s company. Accordingly, the respondents proceeded to allot the work in favour of the third party. As the petitioner is also executing the work under the jurisdiction of the 6th respondent at various other places. A letter dated 05.03.2020 was addressed by the 6th respondent to the 5th respondent informing him to stop the payments to the petitioner’s company. Basing upon the recommendations made by the Vigilance and Enforcement Department to recover an amount of Rs.1,93,87,048/- for liquidated damages and substandard work alleged to have been executed by the petitioner in relation to the said contract executed at Yelamanchali. Prior to letter dated 05.03.2020, the 7th respondent issued Show Cause notice dated 19.02.2020 to the petitioner’s company asking them to submit his explanation on 06.03.2020. 8. The case of the petitioner is that, in the Show Cause notice dated 19.02.2020, there is no mention with regard to any allegation of substandard work or claiming liquidated damages except referring to the Vigilance Report. 9. The grievance of the petitioner is that, no notice was given to the petitioner’s company before conducting Vigilance Enquiry or Vigilance Report dated 22.01.2018. On perusal of the Vigilance Report shows that the Vigilance Department relied on Clause No.48.20 of the Agreement to claim the liquidated damages which reads as follows:- “the liquidated damages are calculated as per the actual days lost and it comes to the tune of Rs.72,73,394/-. But, as per the agreement Clause No.48.20, the maximum amount of the liquidated value i.e., Rs.18,73,55,796/-. Hence, it comes to tune of Rs.1,87,35,580/-”. 10. The financial creditors of the petitioner’s company approached the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai under provisions of IBC Code, 2016 vide Case No.CP/941/IB/2018 and an interim resolution professional was initially appointed. While the proceedings were pending before the NCLT a publication was made in relation to the claims of any third parties. In response to it, the respondents did not choose to file any claim before the NCLT and thereafter final orders were passed on 20.07.2020 approving the resolution plan. 11. The case of the petitioner is that, in view of the final orders dated 20.07.2020, the respondents cannot initiate any coercive measures against the petitioner’s company and in fact the resolution professional has also addressed a letter dated 17.1.2020 requesting the respondents not to adjust the amounts. 11. The case of the petitioner is that, in view of the final orders dated 20.07.2020, the respondents cannot initiate any coercive measures against the petitioner’s company and in fact the resolution professional has also addressed a letter dated 17.1.2020 requesting the respondents not to adjust the amounts. In spite of the same, the respondents have withheld the payments to be made to the petitioner’s company in relation to the works executed by the petitioner’s company pursuant to the agreement dated 16.08.2019, challenging which the present writ petition is filed. 12. The respondent No.4 has filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, 6 & 7 stating that the Vigilance inspection had taken place in presence of the departmental officers and the representative of the contractor. The samples were collected in presence of the contractor’s representative and were tested. Recoveries are proposed for substandard quality of the work and liquidated damages for the abnormal delay of the contractor as per clause 48.20 of the agreement. The Special Chief Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Tr. (R&B) Roads – V Department vide Memo No.22/70/Roads-V/2018 dated 17.09.2018 has issued instructions to take action to recover an amount of Rs.1,93,87,048/- (for substandard work Rs.6,51,468 + for liquidated damages Rs.1,87,35,580/-. As per Tr.(R&B) Vigilance Report No.9/CC No.473/V&E/E/2017 dated 22.01.2018. Hence, the action taken by the respondents to withhold amount of Rs.1,93,87,048/- from the other works of the petitioner in (R&B) division, Nellore is not illegal and contrary in implementing the Government Orders. 13. It is further stated that, Show Cause Notice was issued to the Contractor on 19.02.2021. However, it was informed about the outcome of the Vigilance report and even as per the letter dated 05.03.2020 the vigilance report is marked with the recommendation made by the Vigilance & Enforcement Department. The procedure for recovery was initiated as per the directions of the Special Chief Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Tr. (R&B) Roads-V Dept., vide Memo No.22/70/Roads-V/2018 dated 17.09.2018. 14. It is further stated that the liquidated damages for the delay caused by the contractor were worked out to be Rs.6,72,73,394/- which is more than 10% of the contract value. But as per clause 48.2 of the agreement the maximum amount of liquidated damages for the whole of work is 10% of the final contract value. Hence, the amount proposed by the Vigilance & Enforcement Officers is not irrational. But as per clause 48.2 of the agreement the maximum amount of liquidated damages for the whole of work is 10% of the final contract value. Hence, the amount proposed by the Vigilance & Enforcement Officers is not irrational. Hence, it was initiated to propose recovery from the contractor as emphasized by V&E. The contractor alone cannot decide and direct the department regarding implementation of the recoveries, with due respect on the mutual agreement signed by both the parties, the LDs were proposed. 15. It is further stated that the contractor had not come forward to maintain rate of progress. The department was compelled to withdrew part of the work and entrusted to third party only to support the contractor for coping up with the progress of work. Since the contractor had not maintained the rate of progress, the LDs whichever calculated are to be implemented to the original contractor only. 16. It is further submitted that, the Vigilance & Enforcement Department has imposed recovery as per clause 48.2 of CR. Agreement No.13/2013-14 in Tr, (R&B) Vigilance report NO.9/CC No.473/V&E/E/2017 dated 22.01.2018. Decision of the Superintending Engineer, i.e., (3rd respondent) does not arise. Hence, the action taken by the respondents to withhold amount of Rs.1,93,87,048/- from the another works of the petitioner in other divisions is not illegal and contrary in view of implementing the Government Orders. 17. It is further submitted that the contractor was intimated about the liquidated damages proposed by the V&E report and given chance to prove quality of the work which was reported by V&E. There is no response from the contractor. For the lapses identified by the V&E, it was directed to blacklist the contractor. Hence, the contractor is well aware about the steps that are taken by the department consequent to the V&E report. Further, it was addressed to all the Civil divisions in the state to withhold the amount of proposed recovery. Since, it is in the notice of the contractor, public announcement was not made. If there is no feedback from the other divisions regarding the amounts that are payable to the contractor, action would have been taken through RR Act duly following the Sec. 13 & Sec.15 of IBC code 2016. Approaching NCLT would have been arose if the required amount is not available with any of the government departments. 18. If there is no feedback from the other divisions regarding the amounts that are payable to the contractor, action would have been taken through RR Act duly following the Sec. 13 & Sec.15 of IBC code 2016. Approaching NCLT would have been arose if the required amount is not available with any of the government departments. 18. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner and the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner company has entered into an agreement with the respondents on 27.05.2013 and thereafter in response to the request made by the petitioner, first extension was granted in favour of the petitioner company up to 26.05.2017. But however, though the petitioner company has completed 85% of the work, the balance work could not be completed in view of the change of scope of work which includes preparation of drawings and specifications and also extension of time under a fresh agreement as the specifications in relation to the contract of RE walls is not suitable and therefore the petitioner company suggested for construction of retaining walls with Reinforced Cement Concrete, for which, a fresh agreement was not entered with by the respondents because of which the petitioner’s company would not proceed with the work and thereafter the petitioner company also received a letter dated 11.08.2017 from the 4th respondent stating that the petitioner’s EOT proposals up to 26.12.2017 as requested by them was forwarded to the 3rd respondent vide letter dated 25.05.2017 and the EOT was awaited and it was also stated that the transactions were approved by the competent authority on 10.08.2017 and in view of the changed circumstances, instead of giving extension of time to the petitioner company the respondents got issued a fresh notification calling for tenders though the petitioner has completed 85% of the works. The said act of the respondents would show that the intention of the respondents is to award the subject work in favour of the third parties and because of which they got issued show-cause notice black listing the petitioner’s company, for which, the petitioner has submitted an explanation also. But instead of passing any final order, withholding the payments to be made to the petitioner’s company is admittedly bad in law. But instead of passing any final order, withholding the payments to be made to the petitioner’s company is admittedly bad in law. It also appears that the financial creditors of the petitioner company have approached the NCLT, Chennai under the provisions of IBC Code, 2016 wherein an interim resolution professional was initially appointed and pending the proceedings before the NCLT a publication was made in relation to the claims of any third parties to which the respondents have not responded and have not choosen to file any claim before the NCLT and therefore a final order was passed on 20.07.2020 approving the resolution plan. In view of the same, the respondents are stopped from initiating any coercive measures against the petitioner company. 19. For better appreciation Section 15,13, 24 and 31 of the IBC Act, 2016 is extracted as under:- “Section 15 of the IBC Code, 2016 contemplates that a public announcement of corporate insolvency resolution process would be made and such announcement shall also stipulate the last date for submission of claims. Section 13 also contemplates moratorium and public announcement and submission of claims under Sec.15, Sec.24 contemplates meeting in relation to creditors. Creditors means those persons who submitted claims Sec.31 contemplates approval of resolution plan.” 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.8129 of 2019, under similar circumstances while dealing with the questions as framed under : (1) as to whether any creditor including the Central government or any local authority is bound by the Resolution Plan once it is approved by an adjudicating authority under sub Section (1) of Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 herein after referred as? (2) As to whether the amendment to Section 31 by Section 7 of Act 26 of 2019 is clarificatory/declaratory or substantive in nature? (3) As to whether after approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority a creditor including the Central Government, State Government or any local authority is entitled to initiate any proceedings for recovery of any of the dues from the Corporate Debtor, which are not a part of the Resolution Plan approved by the adjudicating authority? (3) As to whether after approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority a creditor including the Central Government, State Government or any local authority is entitled to initiate any proceedings for recovery of any of the dues from the Corporate Debtor, which are not a part of the Resolution Plan approved by the adjudicating authority? have answered as follows:- (i) That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under sub Section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan; (ii) 2019 amendment to Section 31 of the I & B Code is clarificatory and declaratory in nature and therefore will be effective from the date on which I & B Code has come into effect; (iii) Consequently all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, if not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the Adjudicating Authority grants its approval under Section 31 could be continued. 21. Following the Hon’ble Apex Court Judgment, the Telangana High Court in the case of The Sirpur Paper Mills Limited vs. Union of India in W.P.No.25827 of 2019, wherein stated as follows : 58. Finally in Ghanashyam Mishra case the question before the Supreme Court was as to whether any creditor including the Central Government, State Government or any local authority is bound by the resolution plan once it is approved by the adjudicating authority under Sub-Section (1) of Section 31 of IBC? Finally in Ghanashyam Mishra case the question before the Supreme Court was as to whether any creditor including the Central Government, State Government or any local authority is bound by the resolution plan once it is approved by the adjudicating authority under Sub-Section (1) of Section 31 of IBC? The further question before the Supreme Court was as to whether after approval of the resolution plan by the adjudicating authority, a creditor including the Central Government, State Government or any local authority is entitled to initiate any proceeding for recovery of dues from the corporate debtor which are not part of the resolution plan approved by the adjudicating authority? 59. After elaborate discussion, Supreme Court held that any debt in respect of payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force including the ones owed to the Central Government or any State Government, or any local authority which does not form a part of the approved resolution plan shall stand extinguished. Clarifying further it has been held that once a resolution plan is approved by the adjudicating authority, all such claims/dues owned to the State/Central Government or any local authority including the tax authorities who were not part of the resolution plan shall stand extinguished. It has been held as follows: In the result, we answers the questions framed by us as under: (i) That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Sub-section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan; 22. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan; 22. In view of the above Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.8129 of 2019, which was further followed by the High Court of Telangana in the case of The Sirpur Paper Mills Limited vs. Union of India, this Court holds that any debt in respect of payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force including the ones owed to the Central Government or any State Government, or any local authority which does not form a part of the approved resolution plan shall stand extinguished and once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under sub-Section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan. 23. In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to clear the pending bills with regard to 85% of the work completed by the petitioner without deducting the vigilance claim. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.