JUDGMENT Dr. T.N. Singh, J. -- 1. Law's flaw, the clever suitor often uses as a cat's paw. It is a case of that type. Defendant, himself the law-maker, is blissfully ignorant of its own lapsus calami. This is defendant's appeal and the question is of this Court's competence to purge plaintiff's supposed fraus pia when a case, which could have been pleaded and proved of his cunning and conspiracy, appears in records only in sketcby relief. 2. Tendu plants grow in this State in profuse abundance. Tendu leaves are a source of lucrative trade, For poor man's "Bidi", which millions and billions smoke all over the country, the Tendu leaf is the basic constituent. Though it is a "forest product", the operation of Indian Forest Act is deliberately restricted in its application to the Tendu leaf to care for a weaker section of the people. For "tribals", the forest dwellers, the Tendu leaf is bedrock of their subsistence economy. Bidi-making, obviously is a big industry. State's monopoly is justifiably created in Tendu leaf trade in public interest by enacting the Madbya Pradesh Tendu Palla (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964, for short, the Adhiniyam. 3. Relevant provisions of the Adhiniyam and also of the rules framed thereunder, Madbya Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Niyamavali, 1966. for short, the Rules, will come under close scrutiny in due course. First, few admitted facts to aschew prolixity. In terms of a tender notice, issued pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the Adhiniyam, with the plaintiff firm, four separate "purchaser's agreement" were executed on behalf of the State of Madbya Pradesh by the Conservator of Forests, Gwalior Circle, proved as Exs. Oil to D/4 in respect of four separate units, No.4, Bishanwada, No. 12A, Aron, No. 5A, Fatehgarh and No. 53, Padon all in Guna Forest Oivision, in respect to the period commencing on 21.4.1979 and ending on 31.1.1980. As per Ex. P/24, on 31.5.1979, D.F.O., Guna, issued a notice to the plaintiff firm informing it that inspection of different units, he had made on 31.5.1979 during which he found irregularities in respect to the agreements. As per Ex. P/24, on 31.5.1979, D.F.O., Guna, issued a notice to the plaintiff firm informing it that inspection of different units, he had made on 31.5.1979 during which he found irregularities in respect to the agreements. With respect to the three different items enumerated, he complained breach by plaintiff firm of clause 6(4) b(ii) of the agreements and added that at the Collection Centres, authorised representatives of the firm were not available, as a result of which full information ahout the stock of Tendu leaves could not he obtained. Lastly, he added, during inspection, counting of Tendu leaves was found impossible because those had not been stacked properly in squares of 10x10. 3-A. Also proved are a set of supporting show-cause notices proved as Exs. D/13 to D/16, D/22 to D/26, D/29, D/34 to D/39, of two dates, 26.6.1979 and 3.7.1979, in respect to the different units. In some of these notices, inspection date mentioned was in respect of some units, 31.5.1979 and of other units, 26.5.1979. In these notices also, breach of condition 6(4) b(ii) was complained' and demands were raised separately in those notices assessing separate amounts to be paid by the plaintiff firm and it was stated that action in that regard was taken under clause 6(4) of the agreement. Replies to these notices are also proved as Exs. P/2 to P/18. From Exs. P/19 to P/22, it appears that under those orders, Conservator of Forests, who was moved against the demands raised by the D.F.O., held the appeals to be not maintainable. Prior thereto, on 1.2.1980, the plaintiff firm wrote to D.F.O., Guna, requesting him to release the hank guarantee and indeed, with that letter, they sent a bank draft for Rs. 31,774/-, submitting that they did not accept the claim made, but reserving their right to challenge the recovery proceedings, they were making payment. These facts essentially provide the basis for the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 26,194.16 while admitting that departmentally relief it had got in respect to a part of the claim it had challenged because order of refund to the plaintiff firm of Rs. 5,779.94 had been made. 4. These facts essentially provide the basis for the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 26,194.16 while admitting that departmentally relief it had got in respect to a part of the claim it had challenged because order of refund to the plaintiff firm of Rs. 5,779.94 had been made. 4. In the written statement, at para 5, plaintiff's case that the recovery was illegal because proceedings taken providing basis for the recovery were not legally contemplated and were incompetent and that the action of the D.F.O., Guna was arbitrary and illegal, was denied. On the other hand, a specific case was set up that under Rule 2(1) of the Rules, a standard "Gaddi" had to contain 50 leaves and such Gaddis were to be sold to the plaintiff, while he had taken delivery of Tendu leaves with standard Gaddis containing more than prescribed number of leaves. An enquiry was made in that regard and Panchanamas were prepared of which information was furnished to the plaintiff and for the excess leaves delivered, a demand was made and payment in respect to that was also made by the plaintiff. At para 6, it is stated that at each of the Collection Centres, it was necessary for the plaintiff to keep its representative present and that person representing the plaintiff at the time of inspection had signed those Pallchanl1mas. The inspection was made in accordance with law and the same could not he challenged merely on the ground that no partner of the plaintiff firm was present at the time of inspection. The written statement was filed on 9.7.1984 which gave an occasion for the plaint to be amended on 11.10.1985. The amendment was that on 8.8.1985, after examining the alleged Panchanamas, it was found that those were wholly illegal and the same were unilateral documents. Those were not prepared in the presence of any of the representatives of the plaintiff firm and none had signed the same. 5. On pleadings, the material issue No.2 was, whether from the plaintiff firm, sum or Rs. 26,194.16 was illegally recovered. That indeed is the question to be decided also in this appeal. One witness only on each side was examined by the parties. Gatlulal. P.W. 1. 5. On pleadings, the material issue No.2 was, whether from the plaintiff firm, sum or Rs. 26,194.16 was illegally recovered. That indeed is the question to be decided also in this appeal. One witness only on each side was examined by the parties. Gatlulal. P.W. 1. one of the partners of plaintiff firm, deposed to prove the plaint case and the defendant's case was proved by the concerned D.F.O. at the relevant period, A.N.R. Naidu, D.W. 1. The salient features of evidence of parties may be summed up briefly and for that I propose to refer first to the facts admitted by D.W. 1. 6. In his evidence, D. W. 1 stated that in each of the units "agents" appointed by the Government collected and purchased Tendu leaves for which rural labourers were engaged. It was duty of the agent to ensure that he purchased Tendu leaves in standard Gaddis of 50 leaves each. He named those agents, appointed respectively for the separate four units - Sagarmal Jain, Munabbar Khan, Lalliram and Ghanasbyam Bhai. He deposed also that in so far as the plaintiff/purchaser was concerned, he had appointed only two representatives, Khemchand and Suganchand by name. He gave date or inspection, 31.5.1979, made at different Collection Centres of the four different Units, Bishanwada, Aron, Fatehgarh and Padon. He proved Panchanamas, and also signatures on them of Phad Munshis, available at the different centres whose names also he gave and he spoke also about other witnesses signing the Panchanamas. However, it has not been proved that on any or the Panchanamas, anyone or the two representatives or the plaintiff firm, Khemchand or Suganchand, had signed. He admitted at para 37 that he did not find it necessary to send for the plaintiff or his representatives in making the inspection though they were not available because it was plaintiff's obligation under the agreement to keep one representative attached to each or the Collection Centres. The crux of the matter is disclosed in the answer he gave to question put at para 37. The object of inspection, he stated, was to ensure that those who plucked and collected the leaves get the due remuneration. It is also his evidence that the Phad MunShis were none else than sub-agents who represented the "agents" appointed by the Government. The object of inspection, he stated, was to ensure that those who plucked and collected the leaves get the due remuneration. It is also his evidence that the Phad MunShis were none else than sub-agents who represented the "agents" appointed by the Government. Provisions existed, according to him, for checking at the godown and also during transit at the Check Posts, but those had different purpose. The witness suffered serious and severe grilling and disclosed many other facts with respect to the Panhanamas and also spoke about transit passes (not proved) and tour diary (not proved), but it is not necessary to refer to that part of his evidence. It is necessary only to mention two other faces which he admitted. At para 24, he stated to "their agents", the Department had issued direction for stacking life gaddis in squares of 10x10 or 20x20. He complained also (at para 27) that the "agents" accepted gaddis prepared as standard gaddis as a result of which the labourers were paid less and the purchaser (plaintiff) profited by paying less to the State. 7. Reference may be made now to few important facts which P. W. 1 proved. The Panchanamas in question were not disclosed to him by the Forest Department and those were not prepared in his presence or in the presence of any of his employees. When the Tendu leaves were released to him, then also, the fact of gaddis containing more leaves was not disclosed to him and that fact was even not mentioned in any transit pass. It is also his evidence that gaddis delivered to him did not contain 50/55 leaves each and that in respect of his reply to D.F.O.'s show-cause notice, no hearing was given to him. It has also come in his evidence, indeed, in his cross-examination, that in each unit. there were about 10/15/25 Collection Centres, but in all of those Collection Centres. he did not keep any representative. He admitted that he knew "agents" appointed by the Department, Sagarmal Jain, Munahbar Khan, Lalliram and Ghanasbyam Bhai, hut he did not know if any of the agents had been served any notice by the Department for any irregularity. He also denied knowledge of any fine being imposed on any of the agents by the Department and that he had paid the fine. At para 16, he stated that at all Collection Centres. He also denied knowledge of any fine being imposed on any of the agents by the Department and that he had paid the fine. At para 16, he stated that at all Collection Centres. prepared gaddis are received and within 24 hours. those were to be lifted by him for which transit passes were issued to him for taking the same 10 the godowns. Till price was paid, he \vas not given delivery and the goods remained stored in the godown. He refuted Department's claim that for excess supply. price was merely realised from him and stated that the recovery was illegal. 8. Reference may he made first to relevant provisions of the Purchaser's Agreement of which relevant portions arc extracted : "4, (a) The purchaser shall purchase from the Government all Tendu Leaves in raw form without bagging delivered by Government or by its Officers or Agents in the unit during the period ending on 31st January 1980 in the manner hereinafter stated and at the rate of Rs. 28.20 per standard bag exclusive of Sales Tax and other taxes for the first 2450 standard bags and at the following rate exclusive of sale tax and other taxes for the additional bags :- Guna Rs. 47.55 per standard hag. Note :-- Shortage or excess up to 5 leaves in a standard gaddi shall not he disputed. (b) (i) ... (ii) The purchaser for the above purpose should keep representative in each collection centre who must take delivery of leaves within two days from the date of collection of leaves. Names of representatives shall be furnished to the Divisional Forest Officer alongwith their specimen signatures before collection of leaves as the unit starts. (iii) If the purchaser fails to make payment of purchase price in the manner hereinafter provided and take delivery of leaves within two days from the date of collection then in respect of part or whole of such leaves the Divisional Forest Officer may at his discretion:- (a) refuse delivery of leaves to the purchaser, or (b) deliver leaves to any other person, or (c) permit delivery of the same to the purchaser after recovering an additional sum of Re. 1/- per standard bag as cost of watch and ward. (d) take any action provided in the Agreement for a breach. 1/- per standard bag as cost of watch and ward. (d) take any action provided in the Agreement for a breach. If the Government, its Officer or Agent, as the case may be, arranges to dry and bag such leaves as are subsequently delivered to the purchaser, he shall pay a further sum as is spent on its drying and bagging including the cost of bags as is determined by the Divisional Forest Officer whose decision shall be final and binding. (4) (i) If the purchaser commits a breach of any of the conditions of the agreement and it is not proposed to terminate the agreement on account of any such breach, the Divisional Forest Officer may impose a penalty not exceeding rupees five hundred for each breach. If the amount of penalty exceeds rupees two hundred, an appeal against this order shall lie to the Conservator of Forests, whose decision shall be final and binding". 9. In the Adhiniyam, appointment of "agent" is contemplated under Section 4 on such terms, conditions and procedure as may be prescribed. The terms "grower of tendu leaves" is defined in Section 2 (d) and provision for registration of such a grower is contemplated in Section 10. The State Government is authorised in consultation with an Advisory Committee constituted under Section 6, to fix under Section 7 annually the price at which Tendu leaves shall be purchased "by it or by any of its authorised officer or agent from growers of tendu leaves" and different prices may be fixed for different units. At the price so fixed, Tendu leaves offered for sale in the depots during office hours, the "State Government or their authorised officer or agent shall be bound to purchase" except when it is found that any leaf is unfit for the purpose of manufacture of bidis. Sub-section (2) of Section 9 et. seq. provided the procedure of hearing any complaint made by any person aggrieved by rejection of his leaves. Under Section 12, power is vested in the State Government to direct in such manner as it considers fit the Tendu leaves so purchased to be "sold or otherwise disposed of". According to Section 20, the provisions of Indian Forests Act, 1927 are not to apply to Tendu leaves in respect of matters for which provisions are made in the Adhiniyam. According to Section 20, the provisions of Indian Forests Act, 1927 are not to apply to Tendu leaves in respect of matters for which provisions are made in the Adhiniyam. In the Rules, the term "standard bag" is defined in sub-rule (a) of Rule 2 to mean a bag containing 1,000 standard gaddis and under sub-rule (10), the "standard gaddi" is defined to mean a bundle containing 50 Tendu leaves. Rule 3 makes detailed provision for appointment of "agent" and other matters concerning him. He is required to execute an agreement in form "C" and to furnish to the D:F.O. a list of persons employed by him in the unit with their specimen signature. If the quantity of leaves grown by him during the year is likely to exceed one standard bag, the grower of Tendu leaves other than the State Government, is to get himself registered in the manner prescribed under Rule 6. Rule 7 provides for procedure of enquiry about rejection of Tendu leaves contemplated under Section 9 (2) of the Adhiniyam. A certificate in form "L", as per Rule 9, is to be issued to any person who claims to have purchased the leaves from the Government and the certificate may be granted by the Government, its officer or the agent who sells or delivers the leaves to the purchaser. 10. From the statutory form "C", can be really culled out the nature and scope of the function of an "agent". He is to get remuneration for "organising collection and delivery of standard bags of tendu leaves in the unit" as may be fixed under the agreement, as per clause (4). He is required to act for and on behalf of the Government in all transactions done by him in relation to Tendu leaves. All costs and expenses incurred "on account of pruning, storage, transport, bagging and handling, as the case may be" are to be specified in Schedule B of the agreement. He is not entitled to receive any payment on account of purchase or collection of such rejected leaves and if paid, that is made recoverable from him. Sub-clause (iii) of clause (6) specifies the minimum number of "standard bags, each bag containing 1000 gaddis and each gaddi have 50 leaves" to be purchased and/or collected by him. He is not entitled to receive any payment on account of purchase or collection of such rejected leaves and if paid, that is made recoverable from him. Sub-clause (iii) of clause (6) specifies the minimum number of "standard bags, each bag containing 1000 gaddis and each gaddi have 50 leaves" to be purchased and/or collected by him. He is to pay to the grower the purchase-price fixed under Section 7 and specified in Schedule C, on the same day on which the leaves are purchased. To other persons who are "engaged for collecting leaves from Government forest" He is also required likewise to make payment on the same day as per rate specified in Schedule D. He is prohibited from using axe or any other instrument required for collection and is required to "get the tendu leaves plucked by hand". As per clause (9), for default in complying with any of the provisions of the agreement, the agreement may be terminated and his security forfeited. Besides, "all amounts of penalty, compensation, reimbursement, costs, dues" etc. are made recoverable as arrears of land revenue and he is liable to suffer also the penalty of being black-listed for a period not exceeding three years. 11. What has come in evidence and manifested also in the statutory provisions make the factual position crystal-clear that the "purchaser" is to attend Collection Centre and he may be deputised by his representative at different centres. What is also clear is that plucking and collection of Tendu leaves may take place inside the units anywhere by authorised persons and to the Collection Centre, those leaves are brought for the purpose of sale to the "purchaser". The agent is required to purchase and pay for collection to the growers or the labourers charges for bagfuls which is prescribed. He is to be paid for each bag containing 1000 gaddis and for each gaddi continuing 50 leaves. In evidence, it has come that the agents got the gaddis prepared and as per rules and also terms and conditions of the statutory agreement, he has unfortunately been vested with maximum authority in that regard. The law-maker evidently failed to take care of the conspiracy which the agent and the purchaser may bench to deprive the grower and the labourer on one side and the State Government on the other side of their legitimate dues. The law-maker evidently failed to take care of the conspiracy which the agent and the purchaser may bench to deprive the grower and the labourer on one side and the State Government on the other side of their legitimate dues. In gelling the gaddis prepared for sale, it is unfortunate, statute has not taken care of the impairment of the right of the grower or the labourer if an unscrupulous agent gets prepared gaddis in violation of prescribed standard with more leaves, He will not suffer because he is paid gaddi wise and bagwise and not leafwise; but the purchaser gains when more leaves are delivered to him through thicker gaddis, which will fatten also his purse. The only enquiry al the behest of the grower or labourer contemplated under Section 9 and Rule (7) is in regard t6 any rejected Tendu leaves. It appears to me, though positive evidence in that regard is not forthcoming in this case, that a conspiracy of the type which I have envisaged, the plaintiff firm and the agents might have hatched up because such a suggestion was made to P. W. 1 in his cross-examination. In any case, it is an occasion for me also to observe that while the statutory agreement form 'C' is loaded justifiably against the "agent" contemplating his black-listing even, such a provision is missing in the case of purchaser's Agreement. It is anybody's guess if the Bidi magnets who manufacture Bidi and yield considerable money-power have lobbied to manage convenient laws being enacted to safeguard their interest. 12. It is an unfortunate case that neither under the Statutory provision nor in terms of the contractual obligations, State Government reserved to itself any better right against the purchaser than is contemplated under clause 4(i) when it finds that purchaser committing any breach of any of the conditions of the agreement. The penalty prescribed unfortunately is so frail and flimsy that the purchaser is let off virtually without his whiskers moving a bit. Maximum penalty is Rs. 500/- and when it exceeds Rs. 200/-, the order is made appealable and in any case, the agreement may still continue without being terminated. The penalty prescribed unfortunately is so frail and flimsy that the purchaser is let off virtually without his whiskers moving a bit. Maximum penalty is Rs. 500/- and when it exceeds Rs. 200/-, the order is made appealable and in any case, the agreement may still continue without being terminated. In the instant case, the only claim made by the Forest Department at all stages consistently is that there was a breach of condition No. 6(4) b(ii) of the Purchaser's Agreement by the plaintiff firm which meant that it defaulted in keeping attached its representative to each Collection Centre. Shri R.D. Jain, appearing for the plaintiff/respondent argued, therefore, with supreme confidence that D.F.O. acted in an unauthorised manner and the Conservator also dittoed his action unauthorisedly by levying on the plaintiff/respondent such penalty which is not contemplated under the agreement or under the statutory provision. He relied also on State of Kama taka v. Rameshwara Rice Mills ( AIR 1987 SC 1359 ) to submit that even when there is a case of breach of contract which is between a citizen and the State, damage for the breach cannot be assessed by the Department concerned and recourse cannot be had to recover amount so assessed as an arrear of land revenue. It is true, in that case, their Lordships held that an independent person or body and not the party to the contract is to he allowed the jurisdiction of adjudication concerning breach of any condition of a contract in the interest of justice and equity. 13. However, in the instant case, obviously, the show cause notices or the demand notices were not issued to recover damages in respect of any breach of any term of the Purchaser's Agreement, but under those, claim was made for excess supply and for price due therefor. Unfortunately, as a defence pica, that case is set up and no care was taken to file any counter claim as contemplated in law to enforce the right of an unpaid seller under the Sale of Goods Art. Evidently, therefore, the plea in that regard was not considered sufficient for an issue to be framed for trial and obviously parties did not lead any evidence as well in respect to that plea. Although Shri Khedkar, Additional Government Advocate, submitted that such a defence is permissible and the question, he can also agitate in this appeal, I have found it impossible to agree with him. Apart from the question that there is no sufficient pleading and no evidence for the defence plea, without the claim for price to be enforced as an unpaid seller being duly agitated in respect of that cause of action, taking defence plea in that regard is not going to be of any help to the defendant/appellant. 14. Rule 1(1) of Order VIII, CPC speaks of "his defence" to be prepared in the "written statement" by the defendant and the proviso to Rule 2 contemplates clearly his right to plead either a "set-off" and to make a "counter-claim" additionally. Evidently, the "defence" set up is meant only to meet the claim of the plaintiff in regard to "his cause of action" as per Order VII, Rule 1(e); it is the relief "he claims" as per clause (g) that the action is tried by the Court. Indeed, as per Rule 11(a) of Order VII, the plaint is liable to be rejected if it does not "disclose a cause of action" for the plaintiff. Undoubtedly, the "counter-claim" contemplated under Rule 6A or Order VIII is in the nature of plaint as the defendant besides defending the claim of the plaintiff, "by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit"; sub-rule (3) contemplates written statement of the plaintiff to such a counter-claim. Long before the amendment of 1976 when Rule 6A was inserted, in Laxmidas v. Nallabhai ( AIR 1964 SC 11 ), Apex Court had held that a counter-claim could be entertained as a plaint in a cross-suit. Section 55, Sale of Goods Act creates a right in seller's favour to be enforced against the buyer for the price of goods when the property in the goods has passed to the buyer and he neglects or refuses to pay the same according to the terms of the contract. Section 55, Sale of Goods Act creates a right in seller's favour to be enforced against the buyer for the price of goods when the property in the goods has passed to the buyer and he neglects or refuses to pay the same according to the terms of the contract. The term "unpaid seller" is defined in Section 45 of the said Act and in a suit for price under Section 55, the conditions precedent contemplated thereunder or even under Section 45 arc to he satisfied. All relevant facts concerning the contract of sale in question are to he pleaded and proved for enforcing the right. That can he only done by separate action. Unfortunately, recourse was had to penalise the plaintiff/respondent for his breach of clause 6(4) b(ii) of the contract in question. That was a still- born misadventure. 15. On the basis merely of the Panchanamas whose validity and authenticity are seriously and indeed rightly disputed, no liability could be saddled on the plaintiff firm in the absence of statutory or contractual sanction. The said Panchanamas are all unilateral documents drawn up by the D.F.O. to which the plaintiff is not a party. Besides, corroborative evidence of the alleged "witnesses" and the "sub-agents" being held back, actual basis of counting under those Panchanamas is rendered doubtful; the "witnesses" and the "sub-agents" were alleged to have participated in the counting process and had subscribed allegedly their signatures to the Panchanamas they were, thus, most important witnesses. Neither under the "Purchaser's Agreement" nor under the Adhiniyam, or the Rules, liability was contemplated in terms of such test checking's only. Indeed, no credible evidence has come in this case to establish actually and factually the extent of excess Tendu leaves allegedly delivered to the plaintiff for which he was required to pay the contrary price. The Panchanamas can be a good source of surmises and conjectures and nothing else. 16. Significantly, when Ex. P/24 was issued on 31.5.1979 and breach of clause 6(4) b(ii) was complained, no action was proposed in that notice for recovery of price for excess Tendu leaves, asserting claim of an unpaid seller. That was done subsequently on 26.6.1979 and 3.7.1979 as per Ex. D/13 et. seq., but no legal support for the proceedings subsequently taken under the said notices culminating in the recovery of amount claimed thereunder could be established. That was done subsequently on 26.6.1979 and 3.7.1979 as per Ex. D/13 et. seq., but no legal support for the proceedings subsequently taken under the said notices culminating in the recovery of amount claimed thereunder could be established. The only admitted fact duly proved is breach on the part of the plaintiff, the condition of the Purchaser's Agreement of not keeping attached his representative to each Collection Centre. For that, penalty merely was imposable under the terms of the agreement. hut that step was not taken. The breach pointed obviously to the possibility of conspiracy between the agent and the purchaser (plaintiff) and a valid ground existed for terminating the agreement, but even that was not done. 17. For all the reasons aforesaid, I am constrained to hold that there is no scope for my interference with the judgment and decree impugned in this appeal. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. However, parties are left to bear their own costs in this Court. 18. Before parting with the records, I must part also with a sad reflection on the State of affairs noticed. I would regard it as high time for the statutory provisions to be reviewed and amended appropriately. Indeed, State Government would be also well- advised to consider if the Purchaser's Agreement as well needs to be adequately re-vamped to achieve this object. There can be no doubt about one of the statutory objects of interdicting exploitation of the grower or the labourer who plucks and collects for sale the Tendu leaves. They are the people who are mostly prone to exploitation and are voiceless. It is not that the Adhiniyam did not take notice of the ground-realities because the small grower who can sell hardly one standard bag has even the right to be registered and a grower who is a holder of a "service land" [(as per Section 2(1)] "holding land on the condition of rendering service as a village servant" is also cared for; but loopholes there are still as noticed and those need to be plugged and the law made more effective. Accordingly, I direct the Bench Registry to send copies of the judgment to (i) Secretary to Government, Madhya Pradesh, Law Department, Bhopal and (ii) Secretary, State Law Commission, Bhopal, for necessary action.