1. These L.P.A. Nos. 5 and 8 both of 1999 are being disposed of by a common order with the consent of the parties as both arise from the same judgment dated 17-12-1998 passed in W.P. No. 4984/98 and 4091/97. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by one and common order.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Shri A. S. Jha and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri R. K. Shrivastava. He states that he also represent respondent No. 3 though he has not filed the power.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant raised two points. Firstly, that the election petition filed against the declaration of the result was barred by time as under Section 122(2) of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 the limitation provided is "thirty days", and, secondly, the cost awarded in writ petition by the learned Single Judge is not only excessive but arbitrary.

4. So far as first point is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after scrutiny of nomination papers only his candidature survived and under Rule 47 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 he was declared elected in Form 24. Subsequently, the ele