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 there is an ADR strategy developed by Stakeholder Representatives at each of these levels. 6.2. In order to resolve inter-departmental disputes, i.e., disputes arising between two or more State Departments, there shall be an Inter-Departmental Dispute Redressal Committee, headed by the Chief Secretary. The Inter-Departmental Dispute Redressal Committee shall be an ad-hoc committee that shall be constituted by such persons as the Chief Secretary or Additional Chief Secretary may appoint, to resolve specific disputes. The Committee shall use suitable ADR mechanisms to address the conflict and resolve disputes, as far as practicable without resort to litigation. The Committee shall also recommend suitable ways of resolving disputes without resort to litigation. For instance, in high-stake or major cases where a Department is considering the suitability of filing appeals or pursuing litigation, the Committee shall assist in providing its opinion on ADR alternatives to resolve the dispute and end the conflict. 6.3. Each Stakeholder Department shall develop an ADR Strategy and ensure its implementation. The said ADR strategy shall be outlined and documented in each Department's ADR Policy and/or ADR Plan. 6.3. Each Stakeholder Department shall develop an ADR Strategy and ensure its implementation. The said ADR strategy shall be outlined and documented in each Department's ADR Policy and/or ADR Plan. There shall be an Inter-Departmental Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group, led by the Office of the Advocate General and consisting of representatives of each State Department, government Law Officers, and dispute resolution experts (among lawyers, mediators, arbitrators and other professionals). The Working Group shall assist and facilitate each state Department in framing and implementing its ADR strategy. The Working Group may further create Sec. for implementation of ADR in specific subject areas, especially those that involve multiple state Departments. For example, a Sec. on commercial contracts may involve the Department of Industries and Commerce, Mines and Geology Department etc. 6.4. In addition, the Office of the Advocate General shall also incorporate ADR commitments of Law Officers into the ADR Strategy, to ensure that Law Officers identify ADR opportunities and implement them. 7. A perusal of the above would indicate that any government disputes, the area is to incorporated in two levels. Firstly at the departmental level where conflict emerges, secondly at adjudication level where conflict is escalated and involves Law Officers involving the government. In terms of Clause (6.2) in order to resolve inter-department disputes i.e. disputes arising between two or more departments, there shall be an Interdepartmental Disputes Redressal Committee headed by the Chief Secretary. Such Committee shall be constituted by such persons as Chief Secretary or Addl. Secretary may appoint to resolves such disputes. The Committee to use suitable ADR mechanism and also recommend various suitable ways to resolve various disputes without resorting to litigation, etc. 8. Though in the present case, litigation has already arisen, I am of the considered opinion that the said methodology can be utilized to resolve the litigation, thus putting an end to a litigation which has arisen between the petitioner and the respondents, which are two government departments. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition stands disposed of. (ii) The Chief Secretary is directed to constitute within three weeks of the receipt of this order an Interdepartmental Dispute Redressal Committee to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition stands disposed of. (ii) The Chief Secretary is directed to constitute within three weeks of the receipt of this order an Interdepartmental Dispute Redressal Committee to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents. (iii) In the event of the said Committee being unable to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents within a period of 90 days' of its constitution, the petitioner is at liberty to revive this petition thereafter.