JUDGMENT A S Chandurkar, J. - Notice for final disposal issued earlier has been duly served on all the respondents. Hence Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned counsel. 2. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Panchala in September 2015. The said Gram Panchayat consists of seven members. One of the members of the Gram Panchayat who was elected from a ward reserved for a candidate from the reserved category failed to submit her Validity Certificate. Five members of the Gram Panchayat submitted a motion of no-confidence against the petitioner under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (for short, the said Act). In the special meeting of the Gram Panchayat held on 11/09/2018 the motion of no-confidence was passed with five members voting in favour of the motion and two against it. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid proceedings by filing an appeal under Section 35(3-B) of the said Act before the Collector. The Collector by his order dated 21/02/2019 was pleased to hold that since the motion was passed by 2/3rd members of Gram Panchayat it was valid and hence he dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by that order the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Ms K. Satpute, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the respondent No.7 was elected from a ward which was reserved for candidates from Scheduled Tribe category and the fact that she had not placed on record her caste Validity Certificate she was deemed to be disqualified. She was therefore not entitled to sit and vote in the special meeting in which the motion of no-confidence was considered. Relying upon the provisions of Section 35(3) of the said Act it was submitted that the motion of no-confidence was required to be passed by a majority of not less than 3/4th of the total number of members who were for the time being entitled to sit and vote in any meeting of the Panchayat. Relying upon the judgment of the Full Bench in Anant H. Ulahalkar and anr. vs. Chief Election Commissioner and ors., (2017) 1 MhLJ 431 it was submitted that failure to produce the Validity Certificate was fatal to the continuation of a member elected from a reserved ward of the Gram Panchayat and such member was liable to have his election terminated retrospectively. vs. Chief Election Commissioner and ors., (2017) 1 MhLJ 431 it was submitted that failure to produce the Validity Certificate was fatal to the continuation of a member elected from a reserved ward of the Gram Panchayat and such member was liable to have his election terminated retrospectively. A deeming effect has been granted to the said provision and therefore on 11/09/2018 the respondent No.7 was not entitled to sit and vote in the special meeting. Referring to the minutes of the special meeting it was submitted that the respondent No.7 had voted in favour of the motion. If her vote was excluded then only four members had voted in favour of the motion and two against it. The motion therefore could not be said to have been passed with more than 3/4th of the members voting in its favour. She also referred to the decision in Ganesh Sukhdeo Gurule vs. Tahsildar, Sinnar and ors., (2019) 1 AllMR 471 to submit that in somewhat similar facts a member who had failed to submit the caste Validity Certificate was not counted as a member eligible to sit and vote in the special meeting. This point was specifically raised before the Collector but the same had not been considered thereby causing prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. On this count it was submitted that the impugned order was liable to be set aside. 4. Shri S. B. Bissa, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 relied upon the affidavit in reply and submitted that since the respondent No.7 was not disqualified by passing an order in that regard she was entitled to sit and vote in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat. According to him the list of candidates who had not furnished Validity Certificate has been prepared by the Tahsildar. On instructions it was submitted that such Validity Certificate was not found to have been submitted by the respondent No.7. The respondent Nos.3 to 8 though served have not chosen to contest the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned order passed by the Collector. On giving due consideration to the submissions as urged it is found that the order passed by the Collector on 21/02/2019 is liable to be set aside and the motion of no-confidence is liable to be declared as not having been passed. 5. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned order passed by the Collector. On giving due consideration to the submissions as urged it is found that the order passed by the Collector on 21/02/2019 is liable to be set aside and the motion of no-confidence is liable to be declared as not having been passed. The factual aspect that the respondent No.7 was elected from a ward which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates is not in dispute. There is no material on record to indicate submission of the Validity Certificate by her after her election till this date. The effect of failure of a candidate to submit Validity Certificate within the stipulated time has been considered by the Full Bench in Anant H. Ulahalkar and anr. (supra). It has been held that failure to produce Validity Certificate within the prescribed period would result in such election being deemed to have been terminated retrospectively. There is no need of a specific order to be passed in that regard and such disqualification would be automatic. This decision has been subsequently affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Shankar s/o Raghunath Devre (Patil) vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., (2019) 3 SCC 220 . Thus it becomes clear that the view taken by this Court that a member who is elected on a reserved seat and who fails to submit a Validity Certificate within the stipulated period is deemed to have been disqualified from continuing as an elected member stands affirmed. 6. In Ganesh Sukhedo Gurule (supra) the subject matter of challenge was the passing of no-confidence motion by the Gram Panchayat. One of the members had failed to submit her caste Validity Certificate after her election. The view taken by this Court that she was not liable to be counted as a valid member while computing the requisite majority was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court. It thus becomes clear that as the respondent No.7 failed to furnish her Validity Certificate though she was elected on a seat reserved for candidates from the Scheduled Tribe category, she was not entitled to sit and vote in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat. The requirement of Section 35(3) of the said Act is therefore not satisfied. It thus becomes clear that as the respondent No.7 failed to furnish her Validity Certificate though she was elected on a seat reserved for candidates from the Scheduled Tribe category, she was not entitled to sit and vote in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat. The requirement of Section 35(3) of the said Act is therefore not satisfied. The motion of no-confidence having been passed by only four members in its favour and two against does not amount to it being passed by 3/4th of the total number of members who are entitled to sit and vote. Hence the petitioner is not liable to be removed on the basis of that motion of noconfidence. The order passed by the Collector which is contrary to the aforesaid legal position is therefore liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 21/02/2019 passed by the Collector is set aside. It is declared that the motion of no-confidence passed in the meeting dated 11/09/2018 against the petitioner has failed. The petitioner is entitled to continue as Sarpanch for rest of the elective term. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.