JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. The plaintiff in Title Suit No. 81 of 2008 has filed the present petition seeking invocation of the jurisdiction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in challenging the order dated 15.12.2008 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Sivasagar in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 9 of 2008 and Miscellaneous Appeal No. 10 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the appeals preferred by the present respondents have been allowed by setting aside the order of injunction dated 12.11.2008 passed by the learned trial court directing the ONGC authority not to re-tender. 2. I have heard Mr. P.C. Deka, the learned senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. Mr. Deka, the learned senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the respondent authority has initiated the tender process, pursuant to which the plaintiffs petitioners submitted their tender papers quoting certain rates and two of the plaintiffs having found to be lowest bidder in their respective categories there ought to have been negotiation with those lowest bidders in the event the ONGC has found the bid value offered by such lowest bidder as excessive. According to the learned senior Counsel without making an attempt for such negotiation in terms of the decision of the Tender Committee, the ONGC cannot go for re-tender. Mr. Deka submits that the learned court below has allowed the appeal, without, considering that aspect of the matter, by vacating the order of injunction granted by the learned trial court. 4. Mr. Sahewalla, the learned senior Counsel for the respondents on the other band supporting the impugned order dated 15.12.2008 passed by the Learned Civil Judge has submitted that the authority for good and sufficient reason can cancel the tender process initiated and take a decision for fresh tender, as has been done in the instant case. According to Mr. Sahewalla pursuant to the recommendation of the Tender Committee and keeping in view the excessive amount offered by the bidders, who have formed the cartel, the authority has decided to cancel the tender process earlier initiated and to issue the fresh tender process. According to Mr. Sahewalla pursuant to the recommendation of the Tender Committee and keeping in view the excessive amount offered by the bidders, who have formed the cartel, the authority has decided to cancel the tender process earlier initiated and to issue the fresh tender process. According to the learned senior Counsel the plaintiff petitioners as a matter of right cannot claim that the ONGC authority has to negotiate with the lowest bidders and, in fact, such negotiation, as far as practicable should be avoided. 5. It appears from the order impugned in the present revision petition that the contention of the plaintiffs before the learned court below was that under Clause 32 of the Notice Inviting Tender there is a requirement for negotiation with the tenderers in respect of the rates offered. The Clause 32 of the Notice Inviting Tender reads as follows: 32. ONGC'S RIGHT TO ACCEPT ANY BID AND TO REJECT ANY OR ALL BIDS. 32.1 ONGC reserves the right to reject, accept or prefer any bid and to annul the bidding process and reject all bids at any time prior to award of contract, without thereby incurring any liability to the affected Bidder and Bidder's or any obligation to inform the affected Bidder or Bidders of the ground for ONGC's action. The ONGC also reserves to itself the right to accept any bid in part or split the order between two or more bidders. 6. The said Clause 32 does not contain any requirement to have a negotiation with any bidder and on the other hand it reserves the ONGC's right to reject, accept or prefer any bid and to annul the process and to reject all bids, prior to award of the contract. The learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner could not place anything before this Court to demonstrate that the ONGC authority is obliged under any conditions of the NIT or under any other guidelines/rules/regulation, to have the negotiation with the lowest bidder before taking a decision on the cancellation of the tender process and issuance of the fresh tender process. The learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner could not place anything before this Court to demonstrate that the ONGC authority is obliged under any conditions of the NIT or under any other guidelines/rules/regulation, to have the negotiation with the lowest bidder before taking a decision on the cancellation of the tender process and issuance of the fresh tender process. The learned senior Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on' Clause 3.2 of the proceeding of the tender committee meeting dated 18.8.2008 has submitted that the tender committee having taken the view that the negotiation can be made, such negotiation ought to have been made with the lowest bidder, which has not been done. 7. It appears from Clause 3.2 of the said proceeding dated 18.8.2008 that the tender committee has opined that though the ONGC has an option to conduct negotiation with the lowest bidder, such negotiation may not yield any result since the rates are unreasonably high and are based on cartel formation. The authority of ONGC has accepted such recommendation of the tender committee and cancelled the said tender process and initiated a fresh one. It, therefore, appears that the ONGC has given the grounds on which the earlier tender process, in respect of which the plaintiffs/petitioners were bidders, has been cancelled and the decision for issuance of the fresh tender process has been taken. 8. It also appears from the impugned order dated 15.12.2008 that the learned court below has found that the balance of convenience is not in favour of the petitioners and they would not suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money if the injunction is not granted. 9. The granting or refusing the injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a discretionary relief. Exercise of such discretion is normally not interfered with by this Court in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless of course a serious illegality is caused. The power superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is exercised to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of law and such jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and far and rare case where miscarriage of justice, is shown to have caused. 10. The power superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is exercised to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of law and such jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and far and rare case where miscarriage of justice, is shown to have caused. 10. In the instant case, as discussed above, no such circumstances exist to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It appears from the impugned order dated 15.12.2008 that the learned Lower Appellate Court has given reasons for vacating the order of injunction passed by the learned trial court. 11. In view of the above, I am of the view that the impugned order does not require interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and hence the revision petition is dismissed. No cost. Petition dismissed.