ORDER : 1. Special leave granted. 2. We have heard learned senior Counsel for the appellants, Sri Dave and learned Counsel for the respondents Sri. L. Nageshwara Rao. The scheme in question was framed on 28.3.1990 and Clause-14 of the scheme reads as follows: “The enrolment of new members: (1) Applications for membership of the Trust shall be in the prescribed form “A.” (2) All the applications for membership will be placed before the Board of Trustees and Board of Trustees will take the decision on the application for membership. The decision of Board of Trustees shall be final and conclusive. No complaints or proceedings will be entertained against the said decision of the Board of Trustees. The same right is also vested upon the first Board of Trustees under the scheme during their tenure.” The scheme is the subject matter of the first appeal in the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad. 3. It appears that there was an advertisement inviting applications for membership and a large number of applications were received. On 14.7.1997 an order was passed in an interlocutory application in the appeal directing the Assistant Commissioner to go into the question of eligibility of these applicants for membership. Thereafter the Assistant Commissioner passed an order on 22.9.1997 holding that 1067 persons were eligible to become members. This interlocutory order dated 14.7.1997 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Bench was questioned in L.P.A. No. 24 of 1997 and an application for stay was filed. The stay application was dismissed on 8.9.1999 and this appeal has been preferred against the refusal of stay order. 4. The main point raised by the appellant before us is that the Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to go into the question of eligibility of the members of the scheme who sought membership and that the learned Single Judge erred in his order dated 14.7.1997 in referring this question to the Assistant Commissioner. It is also pointed out in the order subsequently passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 22.9.1997, he admitted that he has no jurisdiction under the provisions of the Statutes to go into the question but nonetheless because of the direction given by the High Court he has gone into the question of eligibility. 5. It is also pointed out in the order subsequently passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 22.9.1997, he admitted that he has no jurisdiction under the provisions of the Statutes to go into the question but nonetheless because of the direction given by the High Court he has gone into the question of eligibility. 5. We also note that the said order of the Assistant Commissioner was questioned in a writ petition by the petitioner and that the writ petition was dismissed on 13.10.1997 and L.P.A. No. 351/1997 is pending in the High Court. 6. Be that as it may, assuming that the Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to go into the question, there is nothing wrong in assuming the decision of the Assistant Commissioner as a prima facie view of the matter and in directing the District Judge who framed the scheme to verify whether the decision of the Assistant Commissioner on the facts applicable to each applicant in regard to the eligibility for membership, is correct or not. This is a charitable trust and the District Court, by virtue of provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure has supervisory jurisdiction even as to the manner in which the scheme framed by it is to be implemented. We, therefore, direct the District Judge to go into the correctness of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on the merits of the eligibility of the applicants. 7. The appeal is allowed and is disposed of in the light of the above observations. The District Judge will go into the question within four months from the date of this order. 8. After the decision given by the learned District Judge on the question of eligibility of the fresh members the learned District Judge will issue appropriate directions for the conduct of the elections at an early date, in accordance with law.