MC 3702/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. MERUNO (Madan B. Lokur, CJ) There is a period of 534 days delay in filing the writ appeal. It is sub mitted by learned counsel for the appellant that his client having been dismisse d from service had no means to sustain himself and, as such, he was unable to en gage an advocate to file the appeal. The respondents have filed an affidavit-in-opposition in which they say that the excuse given by the appellant for the delay in filing the appeal is not adequate. There is nothing to indicate that the appellant could not afford the services of a lawyer. It is submitted that the appellant woke up only after he c ame to know about the reinstatement of a co-delinquent by an order of this Court . It is, therefore, submitted that the reason given by the appellant in not comi ng to Court is not genuine. In our opinion, the fact that the appellant was a constable and had been dismissed from service, it is quite possible that he had no sufficient means to take legal advice. We are, therefore, satisfied with the explanation given by t he appellant in not coming to Court earlier. Accordingly, the delay of 534 days in filing the appeal is allowed and t he miscellaneous case stands disposed of.