Complaints before the Commission of bank loans, etc. The District Collector, with other concerned agencies, was working out the possibility of fulfilling the demands. However, the District administration had not taken a decision on the economic help to be provided, as the matter was sub judice. Security cover was, nevertheless, being provided to the Dalits. The Commission called for a copy of the writ petition and the responses filed in the High Court. The Commission noted, after perusal of the response of the Collector to the writ petition, that the High Court had further appointed a Committee of three advocates and officials to inspect and submit a report. This Committee had found that the Collector's report was not an accurate reflection of the actual situation. There appeared to be large-scale discrimination against the Dalits, which was not properly represented in the reply of the Collector. The Collector's reply was, in fact, based on inaccurate data. The Gram Panchayat officials also did not cooperate with the Committee ^vhen the enquiry was being made. As for the Committee formed by the District Collector, it had not taken any initiative to solve the problem. The Committee observed that the Collector was resting on the plea that a writ petition was pending in the High Court ofGujarat. The Commission expressed anguish at the fact that even after 50 years of Independence, the violation of human rights was flagrant and that unwarranted discrimination against Dalits continued, especially in rural India. The dependence ofDalits on agricultural earnings, is the root cause of their being subjugated. The (ew Dalit youthswho strove to rise above their circumstances with the help ofeducation, and asserted their right to equal treatment, were branded as extremists. The Commission further examined the question of whether pendency ofthe writ petition in the High Court actually prevented the District Magistrate from organizing economic empowerment programmes and doing real socialjustice to the Dalits, and whether the Commission was precluded from directing the administration to protect human rights and prevent the violation of the human rights of Dalits. Keeping in mind the Constitution of the NHRC, it was felt thatjust as the Hon'ble High Court had powers ofjurisdiction and authority under Article 226 to grant such relief as it deems appropriate to the affected persons in the pending writ petition, the NHRC was equally possessed by and entrusted with the same function to grant redressal of violation of human rights of the Dalits. The Commission had, therefore, gone into the magnitude of the problems faced by the Dalits, and accordingly, directed tlie State Government of Gujarat and the District Magistrate, Amreily, to ensure the economic empowerment of the Dalits and adopt the following measures; □ In accordance with Article 39(B) of the Constitution, the District Collector and the Magistrate, Amreily, are to ensure delivery of physical possession of the lands to all the remaining Dalits who were given 'pottos'. □ To grant 'pattas' of any other land available in the Village Devalia and within the Gram Panchayat's jurisdiction, as is economical for cultivation as per the rule, and if necessary, organize Cooperative Farming Societies composed ofDalits. 143