NARAYANA PAI, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition arises out of an election held on 30th Decr. 1968 in respect of three vacancies of directors in the Managing Board of a co-operative Society called Kalaghatgi Taluka Agricultural Produce Cooperative marketing Society Ltd. , the 12th respondent. According to the result of the Returning Officer's scrutiny of the ballot papers in counting, respondent 7 Gurusiddappa Basappa Angadi and 9th respondent sivappa Sankappa Meti were clearly elected by majority of votes and the petitioner Basangouda Channappa Goudar and the first respondent Ningangouda buddangouda Patil secured equal number of votes, viz. , 17. He therefore, cast lots and declared the first respondent elected. ( 2 ) THEREUPON the petitioner raised an election dispute under S. 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act ir> which his prayer was that he should be declared duly elected, and not the first respondent. His case was that in coming to the conclusion that both he and the first respopndert had secured equal number of votes, the Returning Officer had rejected ballot paper No. 35 as invalid, that the rejection was wrong, that the ballot paper must have been taken into account as a valid one, and that if the same is so taken into account he (petitioner) would get one vote more than the votes secured by the first respondent. ( 3 ) THE Arbitrator to whom the dispute was referred for adjudication, set aside the entire election and also ordered costs to be paid by the Returning officer, with the result both the first respondent and the 9th respondent appealed to the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal on the merits of the matter and the Returning Officer (2nd respondent) against the order directing him to pay costs. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal set aside the order of the Arbitrator but upheld the returning Officer's action in casting lots as between the petitioner and the first respondent, agreeing with the view that the 35th ballot paper was invalid. ( 5 ) HENCE this writ petition. ( 6 ) IN this writ petition no question arises about the validity of the election of respondents 7 and 9. ( 7 ) THE only question raised by Mr. Swamy on behalf of the petitioner is one relating to the validity or otherwise of the 35th ballot paper. ( 5 ) HENCE this writ petition. ( 6 ) IN this writ petition no question arises about the validity of the election of respondents 7 and 9. ( 7 ) THE only question raised by Mr. Swamy on behalf of the petitioner is one relating to the validity or otherwise of the 35th ballot paper. ( 8 ) FROM the certified copy of the said ballot paper produced in the writ petition as well as from the statement of facts contained in para 9 of the Appellate Tribunal's order it is seen that there are three cross marks placed against three names including that of the petitioner and one vertical line placed against Ningangouda, the first respondent. ( 9 ) THE view of the Returning Officer, accepted as 'correct by the tribunal, is that the said ballot paper had to be rejected under sub-rule 14 (a) (iv) of Rule 14 of the Mysore Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960. For a full understanding of the argument it is necessary to quote the entire text of sub-rule (12) and sub-rule (14) of the said fourteenth rule. "14. Procedure for election of members of the Committee- (a) The election of members of the Committee of Management of a co-operative society other than those specified in clause (b) shall be held in the followng manner: x x x x (12) Voting shall be by ballot and voters shall make a mark (X) against the name of candidates whom they wish to elect, fold the ballot paper or voting slip, and deposit it in the ballot box. In the case of an illiterate or physically disabled voter who requires help, the polling Officer shall help in making marks against the names of the candidates according to the desire of such voters. (14) Tellers shall arrange all ballot papers or slips: (a) They shall reject a ballot paper or voting slip.- (i) if it bears any signature to identify the voter; (ii) if it does not bear the seal of the society or the initials of the polling officer; (iii) if it contains no marks indicating a vote; (iv) if it contains more marks than the number of seats to be filled. x x x x" ( 10 ) THE particular clause of sub-rule (J4), namely, cl. x x x x" ( 10 ) THE particular clause of sub-rule (J4), namely, cl. (a) (iv), depended upon can invalidate a ballot paper only if it contains more marks than the number of scats to be filled. The concurrent opinion of the Arbitrate] and the Tribunal is that the vertical line in addition to the three cross marks is the fourth mark for the purposes of the said clause. ( 11 ) THE said opinion is obviously incorrect, because the word 'mark' in the context means no other than the voting mark referred to in sub-rule (12), namely, a cross. Even a cross mark if it is ambiguously placed clause (b) says, the mark so ambiguously placed alone should be disregarded, and not that the entire ballot paper be invalidated. ( 12 ) THE clear and unambiguous meaning yielded by clause (a) (iv) of sub-rule (14) read with sub-rule (12), as it should be, is that the invalidation is brought about by the placing of a larger number of voting marks than the number of seats to be filled at the election. ( 13 ) VIEWED in that light there can be no doubt that the rejection of the ballot paper No. 35 by the Returning Officer was wrong. The affirmation of that view by the Tribunal is also wrong. ( 14 ) IN the result, while affirming the decision of the Tribunal that the election of respondents 7 and 9 is good and valid, we set aside its decision in favour of the first respondent's succession at the election by casting lots, and we declare instead that the petitioner, and not the first respondent, was duly elected. The parties will bear their own costs in this writ petition. --- *** --- .