Mumbai, Sept. 20 -- The RBI has directed the removal of Maharashtra cooperation minister Babasaheb Patil from the board of the Latur District Central Cooperative Bank (DCCB), holding that his continued tenure as a director violated the statutory limit on the continuous tenure of a bank director. The action follows a complaint alleging that Patil and seven other directors had exceeded the permissible tenure under the Banking Regulation Act. While the other seven directors resigned after the RBI sought their responses, Patil continued in office. He has rejected the RBI's decision as "improper" and said he would challenge it before the high court. The RBI action is being seen as a major embarrassment for the Mahayuti government, with Patil, an NCP minister, overseeing the politically powerful cooperative sector. The action could have wider implications for Maharashtra's district cooperative banking sector, where local politicians have held sway over bank boards for decades. In Patil's case, the RBI order notes that he has held the post of director for more than 39 years. "As of August 3, 2026, eight directors holding the office of director on the Latur DCCB board in violation of the provisions contained in Section 10A(2A)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act. Out of the eight directors, seven have already resigned from office. However, Babasaheb Patil continues to hold office in violation of the said Act," said an order issued by Scenta Roy, chief general manager, RBI, on September 18. "In view of the foregoing, Latur DCCB is hereby directed to remove Babasaheb Patil as a director of the bank with immediate effect," the order said. HT is in possession of a copy of the nine-page order. The dispute began on May 25, when Latur resident Satish Sheshrao Jadhav filed a complaint with the RBI alleging that Patil and seven other directors had crossed the permissible tenure limit. Jadhav sought their disqualification, raised objections to the bank's staff recruitment process, and also sought the appointment of an administrator. The matter subsequently reached the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court. On August 3, the court directed the competent authority to decide Jadhav's complaint on its merits within six weeks. Following the court's intervention, the RBI sought responses from the eight directors. Seven resigned, while Patil submitted two clarifications on September 15 and 16. Patil argued that the tenure restriction could not be applied retrospectively. He also cited the ongoing election process for the bank's board for the 2026-31 term, saying the state cooperative election authority had approved the programme, with filing of nominations scheduled to begin on September 21. The RBI rejected the argument, holding that applying the statutory provision to Patil did not amount to retrospective application. The RBI also rejected Patil's other submissions and declined his request for a personal hearing. Patil, however, disputed the RBI's interpretation and said he would contest the order in court....