JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction commanding the respondents to remove the embargo for the petitioner and his concerns for submitting e-tenders in response to the notifications issued by the 2nd respondent Corporation for supply of pulses and spices, and to process the tenders to be submitted by the petitioner at par with all other tenders received by the respondent Corporation. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner is engaged in the business of large scale supply of pulses, spices, rice, sugar etc. Petitioner has been supplying several pulses and spices to the 2nd respondent Corporation. However, off late, the tenders submitted by the petitioner are not entertained by the respondent Corporation. Petitioner challenged the rejection of one of his tenders by filing a writ petition before this Court as W.P.(C) No.10802 of 2011. The reason stated for rejection in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in the writ petition is the pendency of cases against the petitioner. The said writ petition is pending. All the cases referred to in Ext.P1 counter affidavit are now over. But, still the petitioner is not in a position to participate and is not in a position even to submit e-tenders as the respondents have created some embargo in the system itself from the petitioner submitting the tenders. These are the circumstances projected by the petitioner to secure the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the petitioner. 4. The question to be decided in this writ petition is whether the petitioner can be permitted to participate in the tenders floated by the 2nd respondent Corporation. According to the petitioner, all the cases mentioned in Ext.P1 counter affidavit in the writ petition specified above are concocted and fabricated, so as to deprive the petitioner the opportunity to supply the products to the Corporation. According to the petitioner, petitioner was supplying products at competitive rates. According to the petitioner, all the cases mentioned in Ext.P1 counter affidavit in the writ petition specified above are concocted and fabricated, so as to deprive the petitioner the opportunity to supply the products to the Corporation. According to the petitioner, petitioner was supplying products at competitive rates. However, since the petitioner had objected the irregularities in releasing the purchase orders and since he had also pointed out the illegal actions of the Purchase Managers from time to time, petitioner was in the hit list of the officers holding the responsible posts of the Corporation from time to time. 5. A partnership firm viz., M/s. AVK Traders was a supplier of the Corporation, of which the petitioner and his late father were the partners. Petitioner had preferred several complaints before the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau regarding the alleged illegal acts of the officers of the Corporation. Thereafter, petitioner had filed a complaint before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur as C.M.P No. 602/2005 under Sec.13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the officers holding responsible positions in the 2nd respondent Corporation including the then Managing Director and Additional General Manager (Purchase), evident from Ext.P2. A preliminary enquiry was ordered by the Vigilance Court. So also, Corporation had withheld substantial amounts payable to M/s. AVK Traders without any reason. Consequently, the said firm had instituted O.S.No.39/2008 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ernakulam and the said suit was decreed. Consequent to certain error apparent on the face of the record, petitioner had sought review of the judgment and decree in the said suit, and it was allowed and thereupon the suit was decreed in full, rendering the Corporation liable to pay the decree amount to the review petitioner, evident from Exts.P3 and P4. 6. It is also the contention of the petitioner that all the criminal cases mentioned in Ext.P1 ended up in acquittal, upholding the contentions of the petitioner. Crime Nos.708/2006 and 711/2006 mentioned as Sl.Nos.1 and 2 in Ext.R1(a) annexed to Ext.P1 were referred by the investigating agency, evident from Exts.P5 and P6. Likewise, Crime No. 133/2005 which was registered as C.C.No.2217/2009 ended up in acquittal, as per the judgment dated 07.02.2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur, evident from Ext.P7. Crime Nos.708/2006 and 711/2006 mentioned as Sl.Nos.1 and 2 in Ext.R1(a) annexed to Ext.P1 were referred by the investigating agency, evident from Exts.P5 and P6. Likewise, Crime No. 133/2005 which was registered as C.C.No.2217/2009 ended up in acquittal, as per the judgment dated 07.02.2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur, evident from Ext.P7. The last case in the said list also ended up in discharge, finally by the order of the Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crl.R.P.No.64/2012, evident from Ext.P8. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that there are no grounds for continuing the rejection of the tenders made by the petitioner for supplying materials to the Corporation. It is also stated that, quite contrary to the stand adopted, the Corporation is entertaining tenders from several suppliers against whom Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kochi submitted reports and advised to black list them, evident from Ext.P9. According to the petitioner, the Corporation is adopting a double standard and for no valid reasons, petitioner is excluded from submitting the tenders. 7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Corporation stoutly opposed the contentions put forth by the petitioner, stating that the track record of the petitioner is not clear, evident from several cases registered against the petitioner. It is also contended that due to the conduct, character and nature of the petitioner, the officers of the Corporation were even reluctant and fearful to adduce evidence properly in the cases, consequent to which, many of the criminal cases registered against the petitioner had to be referred and many ended in acquittal. 8. However, taking note of the respective submissions made across the Bar, I am of the considered opinion, at present there are no cases pending against the petitioner. All the cases registered by the Police were either referred or ended up in acquittal. Ext.P7 order of the J.F.C.M Court-II, Thrissur will clearly show that the acquittal was an honourable one. It is clearly stated in the said judgment that the prosecution has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish its case. That apart, it is pointed out in Ext.P7 that cases filed by the petitioner against the Managing Director of the 2nd respondent Corporation were pending. It is clearly stated in the said judgment that the prosecution has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish its case. That apart, it is pointed out in Ext.P7 that cases filed by the petitioner against the Managing Director of the 2nd respondent Corporation were pending. It is also found that the alleged forgery committed by the petitioner is not proved by the prosecution, and therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the offences alleged against the petitioner. In Ext.P8 revision order passed by the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam also, it is clearly found that there are no circumstances to implicate the petitioner in C.C.No.14/2010, alleging offences under Sections 418 and 420 of IPC. 9. These are all vibrant and clear indicative factors to show that petitioner has no embargo in participating in any tender floated by the 2nd respondent Corporation, if he is otherwise qualified. Any action on the part of the respondents in eliminating the petitioner from participating in the tender proceedings will be clear violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. As a citizen, since there is no embargo created, petitioner like any other citizen, is entitled to participate in any tender floated by the respondent Corporation. Any manner of interference on the rights of the petitioner will be clear violation of the mandates contained under Part-III of the Constitution of India. There is no power vested with the 2nd respondent Corporation to prohibit a person from participating in the tender floated by it, unless there are convincing reasons, and enabling powers, conferred on them. It is well settled that, concept of equality is positive, emerging, dynamic and everlasting, which cannot be tinkered, dented and interfered with any manner other than a process known to law. The said legal principle is founded on the principles of natural justice, and functions as an antithesis to arbitrariness, and upholding the legal principles of equality, fairness and good conscience. The said vibrant principle is a necessary corollary to sustain rule of law. Therefore, in my considered view, preventing the petitioner from participating in the tender proceedings by the respondent meddles with equality principles. Moreover, at present there are no proceedings pending against the petitioner. The said vibrant principle is a necessary corollary to sustain rule of law. Therefore, in my considered view, preventing the petitioner from participating in the tender proceedings by the respondent meddles with equality principles. Moreover, at present there are no proceedings pending against the petitioner. In the circumstances, the action of the respondent interferes with the fundamental rights of the petitioner to seek livelihood and lead a decent life protected under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 10. From the records produced and reckoning the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition and entitled to secure the reliefs sought for therein. 11. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent Corporation to take necessary steps in order to enable the petitioner to participate in the tender proceedings, also by making suitable alterations in the website so as to enable the petitioner to participate in e-tenders also. The whole exercise shall be completed within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.