JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

H. S. Thangkhiew, J.

1. The petitioner who is stated to have been serving as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Jowai Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Ladthadlaboh, Jowai is before this Court by way of the instant writ petition praying for quashing and setting aside of his removal on the basis of a Circular dated 25.06.2021, and has impugned the decision of the Board of Directors of the Respondent Bank in its meeting held on 09.11.2023, as also impugned letter of termination of service dated 22.11.2023.

2. Before adverting to the arguments advanced by the respective counsel for the parties, it is relevant to note herein that a Circular dated 25.06.2021, had been issued by the Reserve Bank of India (Respondents No. 8, 9 and 10), wherein at clause – 4 thereof, the tenure of an MD/CEO had been prescribed to be not for a period of more than 5(five) years at a time, subject to a minimum period of 3(three) years at the time of first appointment. It appears that the Board of Directors apart from other considerations, had based its Resolution for removal of the petitioner from the office of CEO in this Circular. The same is reflected in the minutes of the BoD meeting dated 09.11.2023, wherein at Para – 7(a), it has been noted that the writ petitioner having been appointed on 20.11.2020, by application of the RBI Circular dated 25.06.2021, his services were to terminate on 30.11.2023.

3. This Circular then came to be challenged across many High Courts in their respective jurisdictions, and the same was stayed by the Madras High Court, whereafter, by an order of the Supreme Court dated 14.10.2022, passed in a batch of transfer petitions, directions were issued that all similar matters challenging the validity of the Circular dated 25.06.2021, would be transferred to the High Court of Madras. With regard to the petitioner, wherein he had made the same challenge to the Circular dated 25.06.2021, this Court by order dated 17.04.2024, in WP(C) No. 109 of 2024, in compliance with the order of the Supreme Court then transferred the said writ petition to the Madras High Court, and though a stay order is operating, the same is in the stage of hearing and no final orders have been passed. By this subsequent writ petition, from the facts as noted earlier, the writ petitioner was removed basically in consideration of the directives of the Circular dated 25.06.2021, which has since been stayed. This Court therefore at this juncture is only to examine as to whether the writ petitioner will be eligible to continue in office by virtue of the stay of the Circular dated 25.06.2021, or whether apart from this aspect, he may be allowed to continue in office on other considerations and circumstances which are peculiar to the instant case.

4. Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that what is crucial to the issue is the manner of appointment and removal of the writ petitioner. In the instant case he submits, the writ petitioner was appointed when the earlier Circular dated 31.12.2019, held the field and in this connection, has drawn the attention of this Court to clause – 12 of the said Circular and submits that the Board of Directors of a Bank shall seek approval from the RBI before removing any member or accepting the resignation tendered of any member of the Board. He contends that in view of the fact that the Circular dated 25.06.2021, has since been stayed, the earlier Circular of 2019 which mandates the approval for removal will have to be complied with.

5. Learned counsel has also argued that though the impugned decisions have been taken for his removal in the Board meetings dated 09.11.2023 and 21.11.2023, the same will not be effective unless it was concurred to and approved by the Reserve Bank of India. Learned counsel further submits that the Reserve Bank of India by its communication dated 29.11.2023, had directed the Respondent Bank to withdraw an order dated 28.11.2023, regarding the removal of the