Court dismisses appellant's plea for expired license renewal, citing lack of merit and balance of convenience.

The High Court upheld the learned Single Judge's decision to dismiss the appellant-writ petitioner's applications seeking interim relief. The Court found that the appellant's license had expired, with no renewal or extension granted, leading to no prima facie case or balance of convenience in their favor. As the agreement was commercial and without public interest, the Court deemed the appeal meritless, dismissing it along with any pending petitions and without awarding costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Dismissal of interim relief by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.13298 of 2019.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellant-writ petitioner, a service provider to airlines, filed an appeal under Clause 15 of Letter Patent against an interim order of the High Court. The appellant was aggrieved by the learned Single Judge's decision to decline interim relief and dismiss the applications. The appellant contended that despite holding a statutory license and paying fees regularly, the respondent discriminated against them. The respondent issued a notice to vacate the premises, leading to the appellant filing applications seeking permission to continue operations and suspend the eviction order. The learned Single Judge dismissed the applications, prompting the appeal.

The appellant's counsel argued that the denial of interim relief caused inconvenience and hardship to airlines and the public. They emphasized the existence of a service contract between the appellant and airlines, urging that they had a prima facie case and the balance of convenience favored them. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel stated that the appellant's license had expired, and they had no right to continue in the premises. The learned Single Judge had provided detailed reasons for dismissing the applications and prayed for the writ appeal's dismissal.

The key issue for determination was whether the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the applications seeking interim relief. The High Court noted that the appellant's license had expired on 22.03.2019, with no renewal or extension granted. As the agreement was commercial, without public interest, and with no obligation for the respondent to extend the license, the Court found no prima facie case or balance of convenience in favor of the appellant. Since the appellant had no valid license and was served a notice to vacate, the appeal was deemed meritless and dismissed. Costs were not awarded, and any pending petitions were also dismissed.

---