The establishment of an Inter-Departmental Dispute Redressal Committee under the Karnataka State Dispute Resolution Policy, 2021, is a crucial mechanism for resolving disputes between government departments, promoting efficiency and reducing litigation.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. To set aside the order passed by the learned Additional City Civil Judge in MISC Petition No.910/2015 dtd. 5/12/2017 on the file of the Court of V Additional City Civil Judge Bengaluru City, vide Annexure-A. b. Issue any other direction/order/writ as deemed fit in the circumstances and probability of the case and same may be considered in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioner is the Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation Limited and the respondents are Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The dispute in the above matter is relating to the rents payable by the petitioner to the respondents in respect of the properties which has been rented out to the petitioner. It is in respect of the said dispute that the proceedings were initiated in Misc.No.910/2015 before the Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru under Ss. 470 and 471 of the Karnataka Municipal Act, 1976 (for short 'KMC Act') and the order dtd. 5/12/2017 in the said matter is under challenge in the present proceedings.

3. The issue involved in the said proceedings is as regards the rents payable and/or the increase in the rents payable by the respondents to the petitioner. This in my considered opinion, it would be a fit case for resolution by the Inter-Departmental Dispute Resolution Committee envisaged under Chapter VII of the Karnataka State Dispute Resolution Policy, 2021. The said policy, having been notified in the Karnataka Gazette on 20/2/2021 envisages the use of alternative dispute mechanisms for the purpose of resolving disputes between the government department and private parties as also interdepartmental disputes. It is one thing for the private citizen to have a dispute against the State and approaching this Court, it is another for two departments within the Government having a dispute and approaching this Court or a Trial Court.

4. The Government being the biggest litigator, the Karnataka State Dispute Resolution Policy, 2021, has apparently been formulated to better address these kinds of litigations. In terms of Clause 1.2.3 of Chapter VII, in order to resolve inter-departmental disputes, i.e., disputes between two or more departments, it is envisaged that there is an Inter-Departmental Dispute Redressal Committee headed by the Chief Secretary or Additional Secretary, and the Committee to use suitable mechanisms to address the conflict and resolve disputes as far as practicable without resort to litigation.

5. The typology of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism is also provided under Clause 2 of Chapter VII. Clause 2 of Chapter VII deals with the incorporation of ADR in Government dispute system which reads as under:

"2. Typology of ADR Mechanisms 2.1. To design a suitable system or opt for a suitable ADR process, Stakeholders must be aware of the range of ADR options. The following Tables offer a non-exhaustive typology of ADR mechanisms. The Tables provide a starting point, from which stakeholders can develop suitable ADR system designs for their disputes/dispute areas. Table A: Voluntary Settlement-Based ADR Mechanisms

Table B: Private Adjudication/Determination (Consensual Submission of dispute, Binding Outcome)

Table C: Hybrid/Flexible Mechanisms

6. Clause (6) of Chapter VII deals with incorporating ADR in Government Dispute System. Clause (6.1) to (6.4) are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

6. Incorporating ADR in Government Dispute System 6.1. In government disputes, ADR can be incorporated at two levels - first, at the Department level, where the conflict emerges (in case of inter-departmental disputes, ADR can be incorporated at the time that the conflict emerges between departments); secondly, at adjudication level, where the conflict is escalated and involves Law Officers representing the government. Two objectives must drive each of these two levels: dispute prevention and dispute resolution. It is recommended that ther