Strict adherence to policy-based eligibility criteria for street vendor inclusion is valid and non-arbitrary.

The Petitioners are various street vendors whose applications for vending licenses were rejected by the Town Vending Committee (TVC) of the Delhi Cantonment Board.

On 15th January 2026, the TVC passed a resolution (Resolution No. 3) establishing a policy that only vendors who could produce at least three challans issued by the Board prior to 27th October 2023 (the survey commencement date) would be eligible for inclusion in the list of authorized vendors.

The Petitioners challenged these rejections, arguing that despite having fewer than three challans (one or two), they had been vending continuously and should be included.

1. Whether the TVC's policy requiring a minimum of three challans issued prior to 27th October 2023 for vendor certification is legally valid.

2. Whether vendors who fail to meet the "three-challan" threshold can be considered for inclusion in the current list of authorized vendors.

The Court applied the principles of administrative policy-making by statutory bodies under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act/Scheme framework.

TVC’s Resolution No. 3 dated 27th January 2026 (based on minutes dated 15th January 2026), which dictates that eligibility for street vending is contingent upon proof of prior vending (challans) and the holding capacity of the designated zones.

The court also followed its own precedents in Gyan Chand v. Delhi Cantonment Board and Danveer Yadav v. Delhi Cantonment Board, which upheld the TVC's authority to set verification criteria.

The Court reasoned that determining criteria for the final list of vendors is a policy decision within the exclusive domain of the Delhi Cantonment Board, necessitated by the need to balance vendor livelihoods with pedestrians’ rights and vehicular traffic movement.

The Court observed that the TVC had conducted a "fair scrutiny" of documents and that the requirement of three challans served as a reasonable evidentiary threshold for verifying long-term vending activity prior to the 2023 survey.

Since the Petitioners could not meet this specific policy requirement, the Court found no procedural or substantive fault in the rejection of their candidatures.

The Court emphasized that while one or two challans might show some prior activity, they do not fulfill the three-challan policy mandate currently in force.

If the TVC finalizes its vending plan and finds excess holding capacity, these Petitioners may be considered during the next survey cycle.

The Delhi Cantonment Board was granted liberty to take action against any unauthorized vendors in accordance with the law.