A trustee is not entitled to separate hearing where the public trust is heard through its statutory representative.

The applicants sought review or modification of the High Court’s order dated 16 April 2026 passed in W.P. No. 14329 of 2007.

The writ petition concerned an order dated 13 September 2007 by which an earlier order granting exemption to a Public Charitable Trust was recalled.

The applicant, claiming to be one of the trustees and the person who had applied for the exemption, contended that neither he nor any trustee had been given notice or an opportunity of hearing before the exemption was withdrawn.

The relevant note-sheet recorded that, after an application by respondent No. 4, no notices were issued to the applicant or the trustees.

The respondents argued that the Trust had been represented through its statutory representative, namely, the Registrar under the Madhya Pradesh Public Charitable Trust Act, 1951, who is the Collector of the district.

The Collector had submitted a report dated 9 October 2005, which formed the basis for the decision to withdraw the exemption.

Respondent No. 5 also asserted that although he was impleaded as a petitioner, he had not signed the vakalatnama and that the petition had been filed by the applicant in his individual capacity.

Whether the order withdrawing the exemption granted to the Public Charitable Trust was invalid for violation of natural justice because the applicant or the trustees were not individually heard?

Whether the High Court’s order dated 16 April 2026 disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review or modification?

The Court applied the principle that the State, while acting in an administrative capacity, may recall an earlier order by invoking the applicable provisions of the General Clauses Act.

It further considered the statutory scheme under the Madhya Pradesh Public Charitable Trust Act, 1951, under which the Registrar of a Public Charitable Trust is the Collector and may represent the Trust in the relevant proceedings.

The Court relied on Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320, which holds that review is not an appeal in disguise; repetition of previously rejected arguments, appreciation of evidence, or the mere possibility of another view does not justify review.

Review lies only for a patent or manifest error apparent on the face of the record that undermines the decision or causes miscarriage of justice.

Although the note-sheet indicated that the applicant and individual trustees were not issued notices, the Court distinguished the applicant’s individual capacity from the legal representation of the Trust.

The Trust itself had participated through the Collector, acting as its statutory representative, and the Collector’s report dated 9 October 2005 was considered before the exemption was withdrawn.

Consequently, the Court held that the Trust had not been deprived of an opportunity of being heard merely because the applicant was not separately heard in his personal capacity, even though the exemption had originally been granted on his application.

Since this conclusion did not disclose a patent error or miscarriage of justice, the applicant failed to satisfy the restrictive grounds for review identified in Kamlesh Verma.

The Trust had been represented through the Collector, and the impugned withdrawal of exemption was based on the Collector’s report; therefore, the alleged failure to provide the applicant or individual trustees a separate hearing did not warrant interference.

The review petition was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.