Belatedly produced challans cannot reopen a completed vending survey; future consideration depends on excess capacity.

The Petitioner, Akhilesh Kumar, approached the Delhi High Court under Article 226 seeking directions to the Delhi Cantonment Board (“DCB”) to permit him to peacefully vend at the designated site under the Airport Metro Line, Jharera Village, near Chairman’s Drive, Delhi Cantonment Board, and to restrain alleged harassment.

He claimed to possess challans evidencing vending prior to the commencement of the DCB’s survey on 27 October 2023.

The DCB’s Town Vending Committee (“TVC”), by its minutes dated 15 January 2026, and the DCB’s Resolution No. 3 dated 27 January 2026, resolved that vendors producing at least three DCB-issued challans prior to 27 October 2023 could be considered for inclusion in the list of street vendors, subject to the final holding capacity.

The DCB subsequently scrutinised the challans and finalised the list of authorised vendors.

The Petitioner had not submitted his challans when the survey was conducted and produced them belatedly.

During the proceedings, the DCB also relied on the Supreme Court’s directions in In Re: Phalodi Accident v. National Highways Authority of India, Suo Motu W.P. (C) 9/2025, concerning licences, NOCs and trade approvals within highway safety zones.

1. Whether the Petitioner, having failed to submit the requisite challans during the DCB’s survey and having approached the Court belatedly, could seek reopening of the survey or immediate recognition as an authorised street vendor.

2. Whether the Petitioner’s representation dated 13 July 2026 was required to be considered by the TVC in light of the DCB’s policy requiring at least three pre-27 October 2023 challans.

3. Whether any future licence or vending permission could be granted without complying with the Supreme Court’s directions regarding safety zones and prior NHAI/PWD clearance.

4. Whether the DCB retained authority to take action against vendors lacking a provisional Certificate of Vending (“CoV”) or violating the applicable conditions of vending.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution but applied the DCB/TVC’s binding policy decision that vendors producing at least three challans issued by the DCB before 27 October 2023 could be considered for inclusion in the authorised vendor list, subject to the holding capacity determined by the TVC.

The Court followed its earlier directions in Danveer Yadav v. Delhi Cantonment Board and Gyan Chand v. Delhi Cantonment Board & Ors., under which eligible vendors’ cases were to be examined by the DCB and communicated within the stipulated period.

It further relied on Dinesh v. Delhi Cantonment Board & Ors., which held that vendors unable to produce three qualifying challans could not be included under the existing policy, though they could be considered in a subsequent survey if excess capacity became available.

Any future licence, NOC or trade approval was required to comply with the Supreme Court’s directions in In Re: Phalodi Accident, including the requirement of prior NHAI/PWD clearance for sites within highway safety zones.

The Court held that the DCB had already completed the survey and prepared the list of authorised vendors after scrutinising the challans.

Since the Petitioner had not submitted his documents during the relevant survey and produced them only belatedly, the Court declined to reopen the completed process.

Nevertheless, applying the DCB’s policy and the principle recognised in Dinesh, the Court preserved the possibility of the Petitioner’s consideration in a subsequent survey if he could establish possession of three qualifying challans and excess vending capacity became available.

The Court also directed the TVC to consider and dispose of the Petitioner’s pending representation, while taking into account the prior minutes and the Supreme Court’s safety-zone directions.

At the same time, the Court clarified that the DCB and local police could enforce discipline and take action against unauthorised vendors, vendors without provisional CoVs, and CoV holders who violated the conditions of vending or encroached upon public roads and footpaths.

The TVC was directed to consider the Petitioner’s representation dated 13 July 2026 in accordance with the DCB’s existing policy and the Supreme Court’s safety directions; if excess capacity remained after finalisation of the vending plan, the Petitioner could be considered in the next survey.

The order did not restrict the DCB from taking lawful action against unauthorised or non-compliant vendors, and the DCB and local police retained power to maintain discipline at the vending site.