Belatedly produced vending challans cannot reopen a completed survey; consideration is limited to future surveys with excess capacity.

The Petitioner claimed to be a street vendor operating near Delhi Cantonment Metro Station, Gate No. 1, Ring Road, and sought permission to vend peacefully from the designated site.

The Delhi Cantonment Board’s Town Vending Committee (“TVC”) had resolved that vendors producing at least three challans issued by the Board before 27 October 2023—the date on which the survey commenced—would be considered for inclusion in the list of street vendors, subject to the holding capacity finalised by the TVC.

The Board subsequently scrutinised the challans and finalised the list of authorised vendors; vendors unable to produce the requisite three challans were excluded.

The Petitioner had not submitted his alleged challans during the relevant survey process and approached the Court belatedly. He had, however, submitted a representation dated 4 May 2026 to the Chairman of the TVC.

During the proceedings, the Court also considered the Supreme Court’s directions in In Re: Phalodi Accident v. National Highways Authority of India, concerning the grant or renewal of licences, NOCs or trade approvals within highway safety zones without prior clearance from the NHAI/PWD.

Whether the Petitioner could claim immediate inclusion in the list of authorised street vendors or reopening of the completed survey on the basis of challans produced belatedly

Whether the Petitioner’s representation was required to be considered by the TVC in light of the Board’s policy concerning three pre-27 October 2023 challans

Whether any vending permission or licence could be granted without complying with the Supreme Court’s directions concerning highway safety zones

Whether the Delhi Cantonment Board could take action against vendors lacking a provisional Certificate of Vending or violating the applicable conditions, including by encroaching upon roads or footpaths

The Court applied the Delhi Cantonment Board TVC’s policy decision dated 15 January 2026, subsequently confirmed through Resolution No. 3 dated 27 January 2026, under which vendors producing at least three Board-issued challans prior to 27 October 2023 could be considered for inclusion in the authorised-vendor list, subject to available holding capacity.

The Court relied on its earlier decisions, including Danveer Yadav v. Delhi Cantonment Board and Gyan Chand v. Delhi Cantonment Board, which directed the Board to examine vendors’ cases under that policy.

It also followed Dinesh v. Delhi Cantonment Board, which held that vendors unable to produce three qualifying challans could not ordinarily be included in the authorised list, though they could be considered in a subsequent survey if excess capacity became available.

Further, the Court applied the Supreme Court’s directions in In Re: Phalodi Accident v. National Highways Authority of India, requiring prior NHAI/PWD clearance before granting or renewing any licence, NOC or trade approval for sites within highway safety zones.

The Board retained power to act against unauthorised or non-compliant vendors in accordance with law.

The Court held that the Petitioner could not seek reopening of the completed survey because he had failed to submit the challans during the relevant process and had approached the Court at a belated stage.

Although the TVC policy recognised vendors with at least three qualifying challans, that policy did not create an automatic entitlement to immediate authorisation; inclusion remained subject to verification and the holding capacity finalised by the TVC.

Consistent with Dinesh, the Court nevertheless preserved the possibility of the Petitioner being considered in a subsequent survey if he could substantiate the three challans and excess capacity became available.

His pending representation therefore had to be considered by the TVC in accordance with the earlier minutes and applicable law.

Any future permission was additionally made conditional upon compliance with the Supreme Court’s highway-safety directions.

The Court also clarified that the order did not restrict the Board’s authority to remove unauthorised vendors or vendors violating the conditions of their provisional Certificates of Vending, particularly by using fixed structures or encroaching on public roads and footpaths.

The TVC was directed to consider and dispose of the Petitioner’s representation dated 4 May 2026 in accordance with law, while taking into account the TVC’s earlier policy and the Supreme Court’s highway-safety directions.

The Petitioner could be considered in a future survey if he established possession of three qualifying challans and excess vending capacity was available.

The Delhi Cantonment Board and local police remained entitled to maintain discipline and take lawful action against unauthorised or non-compliant vendors.