ellee neither alleged nor proved that the Board of Pardons and Paroles was attempting or threatening to move their offices from the State Capitol to Huntsville, Tex.; nor did appellee allege or prove that the State Comptroller or State Treasurer were attempting or threatening to issue or pay any warrant for the purpose of paying the expense of removing the offices of the Board of Pardons and Paroles from Austin to Huntsville, Tex. The rule of law is settled that an applicant for an injunction must show that he is entitled to the injunction in accordance with some principle of equity, and that the relief which he is entitled to requires the injunction. He must allege and prove a threat or imminent probability that the injury of which he is complaining is about to occur, and will probably occur unless the injunction is granted as prayed for. Freeman v. Miller, 53 Tex. 372; Los Angeles Heights Independent School Dist. v. Chestnut (Tex.Civ.App.) 287 S.W. 693; Wright v. Wright, 3 Tex. 168; Shaw v. Hinton (Tex.Civ.App.) 31 S.W.2d 478; T. Ratto Co. v. Levy Bros. Co., 63 Tex. 278; 24 Tex.Jur. pp. 225-228, §§ 170-172. In the instant case, the undisputed record not only shows that the Board of Pardons and Paroles and its members were not intending or threatening to move their offices from Austin to Huntsville, but they are contending that the act which requires them to do so is not enforceable, as being in violation of the statutes and Constitution of this state.