Judgment :- SRINIVASAN, J. This appeal is directed against an order dismissing the application for injunction filed by the writ petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition and also vacating the interim injunction granted on 20-1-1994. 2. The writ petition is one challenging the order of the Joint Secretary and Chief Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, passed on 22-11-1993 disapproving the application for renewal of licence originally granted to the petitioner. The petitioner was functioning as a travel agent under the licence issued by the department. Its licence was to expire on 30-6-1993. He had applied for renewal. On account of an order passed in an earlier writ petition in this Court, the writ petitioner continued to do his business, though there was no renewal as the order permitted the petitioner to function as a travel agent till the disposal of the renewal application. 3. By the order impugned in the writ petition, the Chief Passport Officer has decided not to grant renewal to the petitioner and various matters are relied on by him and it is not necessary to refer the same here. No doubt, reliance is placed by the Chief Passport Officer on the reports furnished by the other authorities. The main contention is that the reports on which reliance is placed were not furnished to the petitioner. It is stated that the Chief Passport Officer has not applied his mind and simply adopted the reports of the other authorities. On this ground the writ petitioner wanted the order of the Chief Passport Officer to be quashed. While admitting the writ petition, this Court granted an order of interim injunction on 20-1-1994 restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's business as travel agent. The respondents filed an application to vacate the interim injunction on 21-2-1994. That application was pending and during summer vacation, an urgent motion was moved for considering the application for injunction and the application for vacating the injunction. A representation was made on behalf of the appellant herein seeking an adjournment on the ground that the counsel for the appellant was not in town. The learned Judge who was sitting in the vacation Court refused to grant adjournment in view of the urgency of the situation and passed orders. The learned Judge vacated the interim injunction and dismissed the application for injunction while ordering the application for vacating the injunction. The learned Judge who was sitting in the vacation Court refused to grant adjournment in view of the urgency of the situation and passed orders. The learned Judge vacated the interim injunction and dismissed the application for injunction while ordering the application for vacating the injunction. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioner has preferred this appeal. 4. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that the order of the learned single Judge is vitiated because he has not considered the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is also argued that the learned Judge ought to have granted time to the appellant as his counsel was not in town during vacation. It is said that there was no urgency to move the vacation Court when when the injunction was in force from January, 1994. 5. We are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. We have gone through the order impugned in the writ petition. We find that the order referred to several matters which are warranting refusal to grant renewal of the licence prayed for by the petitioner. The question, whether the impugned order is vitiated and liable to be set aside has to be decided only in the main writ petition. 6. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, can the petitioner get virtually a licence from this Court to run the business, is the question now before us. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner should not be allowed to do the business during the pendency of the writ petition, particularly when the authorities decided not to grant renewal of the licence and it would certainly affect the members of the public. The ultimate sufferers will be the public at large and the nation and consequently, the balance of convenience is undoubtedly against the grant of injunction in favour of the petitioner. We are also of the opinion that unless there are extraordinary facts and circumstances, this Court shall not grant virtually licence in favour of the writ petitioner when its claim has been discountenanced by the authorities concerned. It is not for this Court to issue a licence to run the business when the question whether he is entitled to licence is pending. It is not for this Court to issue a licence to run the business when the question whether he is entitled to licence is pending. Unless and until the writ petitioner succeeds in the writ petition, the petitioner is not entitled to carry on the business and it is not for this court to permit him to do business in the meanwhile. 7. In the circumstances, we do not find any justification to entertain this appeal and it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.