Vendor Eligibility Based on Policy Criteria of Minimum Challans as Prerequisite for Inclusion in Vending Lists.

The Petitioners are street vendors who sought to be included in the list of authorized vendors within the Delhi Cantonment area. Their applications for vending licenses were rejected by the Town Vending Committee (TVC)

The Delhi Cantonment Board, vide Resolution No. 3 dated January 27, 2026, adopted a policy requiring vendors to produce at least three challans issued by the Board prior to the survey commencement date of October 27, 2023, to be eligible for inclusion

The Petitioners challenged the rejection of their candidatures, asserting that they had been vending continuously, despite possessing fewer than the required three challans or challans dated after the cut-off

1. Whether the criteria set by the Town Vending Committee requiring at least three challans issued prior to October 27, 2023, for inclusion in the street vendor list is legally sustainable.

2. Whether vendors who failed to meet the specific document criteria but claim continuous vending can be mandated for inclusion in the current list of authorized vendors.

The Court applied the principle that the formulation of criteria for street vending is a policy decision within the domain of the local authority and the Town Vending Committee, as per the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act principles

The Court relied on its own precedents in Gyan Chand v. Delhi Cantonment Board and Danveer Yadav v. Delhi Cantonment Board, which upheld the TVC's authority to finalize vending lists based on holding capacity and verified documentation (challans) to balance vendor rights with pedestrian and vehicular traffic movement

The Court observed that the TVC had undertaken a detailed scrutiny exercise pursuant to previous judicial directions to verify the authenticity of vendors. It reasoned that defining eligibility based on a specific number of prior challans is a legitimate policy mechanism to manage "holding capacity" and ensure that public spaces are not disrupted by unregulated vending.

The Court found that the Petitioners' failure to meet the "three-challan" threshold meant they did not satisfy the verified criteria for the current phase of authorization. The Court noted that the TVC’s scrutiny was fair and that the judicial role is not to fault a policy decision regarding space management and urban planning unless it is arbitrary, which was not the case here.

The petitions were disposed of with the direction that if excess capacity is found after the vending plan is finalized, these petitioners may be considered in the next survey. The Court further clarified that the Delhi Cantonment Board remains free to take action against unauthorized vendors in accordance with law.