Belatedly produced vending challans cannot reopen a completed survey and may be considered only against future excess capacity.

The Petitioner, Hakim Prasad Mehto, a street vendor, sought directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to permit him to vend peacefully from the designated site at APS Colony Road, adjacent to PM SHRI Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 2, Delhi Cantonment Board, and to restrain the Respondents from harassing or preventing him from vending.

He claimed to possess challans issued by the Delhi Cantonment Board (“DCB”) evidencing vending activity prior to the Town Vending Committee’s survey, which commenced on 27 October 2023.

The DCB’s Town Vending Committee (“TVC”), by its minutes dated 15 January 2026, resolved that vendors producing at least three DCB challans issued before 27 October 2023 would be considered for inclusion in the list of street vendors, subject to the holding capacity finalised by the TVC.

This policy was confirmed by DCB Resolution No. 3 dated 27 January 2026.

The Court had previously directed the DCB, in similar cases, to examine vendors’ claims on the basis of this criterion and communicate its decision.

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

Vendors who produced three qualifying challans were included, while those who failed to produce the requisite documents were rejected.

In the present case, the Petitioner had not submitted the relevant challans when the survey was conducted and approached the Court after the survey and preparation of the authorised-vendor list.

He had, however, submitted a representation dated 30 April 2026 to the Chairman of the TVC.

The Court also considered the Supreme Court’s directions in In Re: Phalodi Accident v. National Highways Authority of India, Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 9/2025, requiring prior NHAI/PWD clearance before granting or renewing licences, NOCs, or trade approvals for sites within highway safety zones.

Whether the Court could direct the DCB to reopen the completed survey and consider the Petitioner for immediate inclusion in the list of authorised street vendors on the basis of challans produced belatedly?

Whether the Petitioner’s representation dated 30 April 2026 was required to be considered by the TVC in accordance with the DCB’s policy concerning vendors possessing at least three challans issued before 27 October 2023?

Whether any licence or vending permission granted to the Petitioner would have to comply with the Supreme Court’s directions concerning highway safety zones and prior NHAI/PWD clearance?

Whether the DCB retained authority to take action against unauthorised vendors or vendors violating the terms of their provisional Certificates of Vending (“CoVs”)?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, but declined to reopen an administrative survey that had already been completed and had resulted in a final list of authorised vendors.

The Court applied the DCB/TVC policy embodied in the minutes dated 15 January 2026 and Resolution No. 3 dated 27 January 2026, under which a vendor producing at least three DCB challans issued before 27 October 2023 could be considered for inclusion, subject to the TVC’s holding capacity.

It relied on the principles followed in Danveer Yadav v. Delhi Cantonment Board, Narender Yadav v. Delhi Cantonment Board & Ors., Anita Devi v. Delhi Cantonment Board & Ors., and Gyan Chand v. Delhi Cantonment Board & Ors., namely that qualifying vendor claims should be examined by the DCB, while vendors unable to produce three qualifying challans could not be included under the existing policy but might be considered in a subsequent survey if capacity remained available.

The Court further applied the Supreme Court’s directions in In Re: Phalodi Accident v. National Highways Authority of India, Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 9/2025, that no licence, NOC, or trade approval should be granted or renewed for a site within a highway safety zone without prior NHAI/PWD clearance.

The DCB also retained its statutory and administrative power to act against unauthorised vending, encroachment, or violations of provisional CoV conditions.

The Court held that the Petitioner could not claim immediate inclusion in the authorised-vendor list because he had failed to submit his challans during the relevant survey process, the survey had been completed, and the list of authorised vendors had already been finalised.

Reopening the survey at that stage was therefore unwarranted.

However, because the Petitioner claimed to possess three qualifying challans and had submitted a representation to the Chairman of the TVC, the Court directed the TVC to consider and dispose of that representation in accordance with the existing policy and earlier minutes.

Any future consideration of the Petitioner’s claim was made conditional upon the availability of excess vending capacity after finalisation of the vending plan and could not override the completed survey.

The Court additionally required the TVC to consider the Supreme Court’s highway-safety directions before granting any licence or vending permission.

At the same time, it clarified that the order did not restrict the DCB or local police from maintaining discipline or proceeding against unauthorised vendors, encroachers, or CoV holders acting contrary to the applicable conditions.

The TVC was directed to consider and decide the Petitioner’s representation dated 30 April 2026 in accordance with the DCB’s minutes and policy dated 15 January 2026, while also complying with the Supreme Court’s highway-safety directions.

The Petitioner could be considered in a subsequent survey only if, after finalisation of the vending plan, excess capacity remained.

The DCB remained free to take action in accordance with law against unauthorised vendors, encroachers, or vendors violating provisional CoV conditions.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.