Policy criteria requiring three pre-survey challans for street vendor inclusion are valid exercises of administrative discretion.

The Petitioners are various street vendors who applied for vending licenses from the Delhi Cantonment Board. Their applications were rejected by the Town Vending Committee (TVC) during a scrutiny process initiated to finalize the list of authorized vendors

The TVC, via Resolution No. 3 dated January 27, 2026, established a eligibility criterion requiring vendors to produce at least three challans issued by the Board prior to the survey commencement date of October 27, 2023

The Petitioners challenged the rejection of their candidatures, arguing that some possessed only one or two challans but continued to vend regularly

1. Whether the eligibility criterion requiring at least three challans issued prior to October 27, 2023, for inclusion in the street vendor list is legally valid

2. Whether vendors who failed to meet the three-challan threshold but possessed some evidence of vending (1–2 challans) could be mandated for inclusion in the current authorized list

the determination of criteria for drawing up a final list of vendors is a policy decision within the domain of the local authority, provided it considers factors like holding capacity, pedestrian movement, and vehicular traffic

Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act framework as interpreted in Gyan Chand v. Delhi Cantonment Board & Ors. and Danveer Yadav v. Delhi Cantonment Board, which upheld the TVC’s authority to verify credentials through specific documentation like challans to regulate vending zones

The Court observed that the TVC had conducted a detailed scrutiny of documents based on a deliberate policy decision dated January 15, 2026

The Court refused to interfere with the "three-challan" rule, characterizing it as a balanced policy choice aimed at managing limited urban space and ensuring that only long-term, verifiable vendors are accommodated

The Court found the scrutiny process to be fair, noting that those who met the documentary requirements were included, while those who did not were rightfully excluded

judicial intervention in such policy-driven administrative criteria is unwarranted unless the process is found to be arbitrary, which was not the case here

The petitions were disposed of with the direction that if the TVC finds excess holding capacity after finalizing the current vending plan, Petitioners with fewer challans may be considered in the next survey cycle

The Board remains free to take action against unauthorized vendors in accordance with law