1. Petitioner is a divisional Forest officer and is allegedly involved in the pilferage of tim­ber from Boniyar range of SFC (Ext) Division Baramulla during his posting as Range officer and Divisional Manager in the said Division. The Government referred his case to Commission of inquiry for investigation and the matter is pend­ing before the said authority (respondent No.1). 2. This writ petition has been filed for chang­ing the venue and sitting of the commission of enquiry from Jammu to Srinagar for reasons stated in the petition including the physical disability and financial constraints of the petitioner. Re­spondents have filed reply where it is stated that the petitioner filed earlier writ petition (OWP No.09/2000) which was disposed of on 19.01.2000, with direction to respondents to consider the rep­resentation for change of venue as above on merits of the case, it is further stated that the representation of the petitioner thereto was con­sidered and for reasons given thereto the repre­sentation was turned down and petitioner was asked to present himself before the authority at Jammu on specified date and time (annexure D). It is further stated that in view of prevailing situa­tion in the valley and the objections raised by the otherside and also keeping in view, the conven­ience of the Commissioner of Enquiry, it is not possible for the Commissioner to hold sitting at Srinagar for these days. 3. On consideration upon hearing, that the court even in the earlier writ petition made it known that the court cannot issue direction in such mat­ters in as much as the competent authority con­ducting enquiry is to take decision regarding the venue and sitting of commissioner and conduct of enquiry proceedings thereto pursuant to di­rections of the court, the commissioner of enquir­ies has in its order qua representation of the petitioner on the subject stated that it is not con­venient and possible to hold rest of the enquiry at Srinagar when petitioner has already appeared before him and participated in part proceedings at Jammu. He has also stated that the otherside namely presenting officer of the State Forest Cor­poration and their counsel have resisted this re­quest of petitioner and instead prayed for enquiry to continue at Jammu. The orders appear to be reasoned one and well be considered. 4. He has also stated that the otherside namely presenting officer of the State Forest Cor­poration and their counsel have resisted this re­quest of petitioner and instead prayed for enquiry to continue at Jammu. The orders appear to be reasoned one and well be considered. 4. In the opinion of this court, it is neither proper nor appropriate for the court to issue di­rections regulating the place and venue of en­quiry to be held by an authority constituted under law but at the same the authority cannot be so dehumanized as to ignore and over-look the human and humane aspects of the case, while balancing and fixing the appropriate venue and place for the sitting and conduct of proceedings, after being alive to paramount considerations of public and administrative interests. In the total­ity of the facts and circumstances, enquiry com­missioner is free to take decision regarding venue and place of conduct of the inquiry/proceedings within the para-meters of law, while keeping in mind that an order like the one under challenge passed once can be changed in the field of ad­ministration action/(sic). Dismissed.