State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Senior Post Master Gpo vs Tamanna Sharma on 23 February, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MEGHALAYA
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/17/FA/5/2025
(Against the Order dated 29th August 2025 in Complaint No. DC/274/CC/12/2024 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission East khasi hills )
WITH
SC/17/IA/3/2025 (STAY)
SENIOR POST MASTER GPO
PRESENT ADDRESS - GENERAL POST OFFICE SHILLONG EAST KHASI HILLS MEGHALAYA
, SHILLONG GPO , GS ROAD , EAST KHASI HILLS,MEGHALAYA.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
TAMANNA SHARMA
PRESENT ADDRESS - NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY MAYURBHANJ COMPLEX
NONGTHYMMAI , EAST KHASI HILLS,MEGHALAYA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. MAJOR UNSAM NONGSIEJ , MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. NELLYSA F. KHARSHIING , MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. BIJOY A. SANGMA , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
MR. R. DEBNATH
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
MS. T. SHARMA
DATED: 23/02/2026
ORDER
Heard the counsel for the Appellant, Mr. R. Debnath and Miss Tamanna Sharma, Respondent appeared in person via VC as she is a student of National Law College, Meghalaya and currently doing her internship at Delhi and could not appear in person. She has argued well. Heard Mr. R. Debnath, advocate. We are not dealing with the merits of the case but we are looking only into the nature of the order passed by the District Commission, East Khasi Hills. The order dated 23.05.2023 and order dated 30.10.2023 are two to three lines respectively without discussing merit of the case nor given any reason rather it is a cryptic order.
In view of the Supreme Court order of Civil Appeal No. 3433 of 2000, United Commercial Banks and Others Vrs. P.C. Kakkar, the Hon'ble Supreme court has said there should be reason in the order which gives living link with the order maker, so that higher court will be able to assess reasons for passing order and examine the same. But in the present order, it is missing. It will be proper to quote some part of para - 15 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgement " It needs no emphasis that when a court feels that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, it must record reasons for coming to such a conclusion. Mere expression that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate would meet the requirement of law. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union23 observed :
(All ER p. 1154h) "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration." In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree24 it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the minds of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at." Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking- out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi - judicial performance."
Both orders order dated 23.05.2023 and 30.10.2023 are quashed and the case is remanded back to the lower court. We have not given any opinion in the merit of the case. The District Commission should decide the case within 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly this case is disposed off.
..................J SHIVAJI PANDEY PRESIDENT ..................
MAJOR UNSAM NONGSIEJ MEMBER ..................J NELLYSA F. KHARSHIING MEMBER ..................J BIJOY A. SANGMA MEMBER