"Google Address Error” Claim Cannot Replace Proof Of Actual Residence: Bombay High Court Rejects RTE Admission Plea
The Bench noted that residential requirement is not an empty formality, but constitutes an essential eligibility condition governing admission under the reserved quota.
The Bombay High Court has held that mere assertions regarding errors in an auto-generated Google address cannot substitute proof of actual residence, dismissing a petition seeking admission under the neighbourhood quota of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). The Bench noted that it was not possible to accept that a family of three members can reside in such premises with only one bed/cot.
The petition was filed by a minor child through his father, challenging the rejection of his admission application by Podar Education Network’s Wagholi, Pune school. The petitioner claimed that he and his parents had been residing at a premises in Kharadi, Pune, since August 06, 2025 which was situated within the prescribed neighbourhood distance from the school. The rejection was challenged on the ground that the discrepancy in the address reflected in the online application was due to an auto-generated Google Maps error.
The authorities, however, rejected the claim after finding that the residential proof furnished by the petitioner did not establish actual occupation of the premises.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad observed, “…There is no independent evidence establishing actual residence at the claimed address. No electricity bills, water bills, gas connection, bank correspondence, ration card or any other contemporaneous documents have been produced to substantiate continuous residence. The burden of establishing residential eligibility squarely rests upon the Petitioner. Mere assertions regarding errors in the auto-generated Google address cannot substitute proof of actual residence”.
Advocate Ahilya T. Nalawade appeared for the petitioner and Neha Bhide, Government Pleader appeared for the respondent.
During the proceedings, the Court directed physical verification of the claimed residence. The inspection report revealed that the premises contained only one bed/cot on the first floor, while the ground floor was being used as a small eating establishment operated by the petitioner’s mother.
Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that the discrepancies were merely technical, the Bench observed that the burden of proving residential eligibility rests upon the applicant. The Court held that allowing neighbourhood eligibility claims without satisfactory proof of residence could defeat the statutory scheme and deprive genuinely eligible children of admission benefits.
“The residential requirement is not an empty formality, but constitutes an essential eligibility condition governing admission under the reserved quota. Diluting or overlooking such requirement in the absence of satisfactory proof would not only defeat the object of the statutory scheme, but may result in denying admission to another needy child who genuinely satisfies the ‘neighbourhood’ conditions”, the Bench noted.
The Bench further noted inconsistencies between the addresses appearing in the admission form, leave and licence agreement, Aadhaar records and voter identity documents. Finding no error in the authorities’ decision, the Court dismissed the petition and upheld the rejection of the RTE admission claim.
Cause Title: Manas Sandip Sathe v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Writ Petition No.7601 OF 2026
Appearances:
Petitioner: Ahilya T. Nalawade, Advocate.
Respondents: Neha Bhide, Government Pleader, Kedar B. Dighe, Additional Government Pleader and G.R. Raghuwanshi, Assistant Government Pleader.