Requirement of Three Prior Challans for Inclusion in Street Vendor List is a Valid Policy Decision

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 aimed at finalizing a list of authorized vendors.

The TVC, via Resolution No. 3 dated January 27, 2026, established a specific eligibility criterion: vendors must produce at least three (03) challans issued by the Board prior to the survey commencement date of October 27, 2023.

The Petitioners, some of whom possessed only one or two challans or challans issued after the cutoff date, challenged the rejection of their candidatures, seeking inclusion in the authorized list.

1. Whether the TVC’s policy requiring a minimum of three challans issued prior to October 27, 2023, is a valid criterion for inclusion in the list of authorized street vendors.

2. Whether vendors who fail to meet the three-challan threshold but claim to be vending continuously can be granted authorized status under the current survey.

The court relied on the discretionary powers of the Town Vending Committee (TVC) as a statutory body to formulate policy decisions regarding the regulation of street vending.

It emphasized that such policy decisions must balance the rights of vendors with public interests, such as "space available, the capacity, as also the number of vendors who are to be accommodated in a manner that pedestrians and vehicular traffic movement is not disrupted".

The court upheld the principle that judicial review is limited when a policy decision—specifically the "three challan" rule—has been consistently applied and previously recognized in judicial precedents such as Gyan Chand v. Delhi Cantonment Board and Danveer Yadav v. Delhi Cantonment Board.

The Court observed that the TVC had undertaken a "fair scrutiny" and a detailed exercise to verify documents pursuant to previous court directions.

It reasoned that the requirement of three challans serves as objective evidence of a vendor's long-standing presence in the area prior to the survey cutoff.

The Court held that it could not find fault with the rejection of applicants who provided insufficient documentation, as the criteria stemmed from a deliberated policy decision intended to manage holding capacity.

While the Petitioners argued that one or two challans proved their existence as vendors, the Court maintained that adhering to the established policy threshold was necessary for administrative consistency.

However, the Court granted limited relief by directing that if the TVC finalizes a vending plan and finds "excess capacity available," vendors with fewer than three challans may be considered in the "next survey."

The Board was explicitly authorized to take action against any unauthorized vendors in accordance with law.