U. L. Bhat, C.J.:- A copy of the writ petition is served on Shri. D. P. Chaliha learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. Petitioner is a dealer in essential commodities having a wholesale licence under Assam Trade Articles (Licencing and Control) order 1982. On 31.5.91 5th respondent seized certain quantity of rice and sugar along with documents from the business premises of the petitioner ostensibly on account of alleged violation of the provisions of the Assam Trade Articles (Licencing and Control) order 1982 the petitioner on the same date filed an application before 3rd'respondent requesting for release of goods. Instead of directing release of goods 3rd respondent by Annexure-D letter dated 25.7.91 requested the superintendent of Police, Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences Gauhati to sell the seized articles at fixed price and deposit the amount in the revenue head of treasury through challan. It appears the F. I. R. Was sent to the Court of the Special Judge, Gauhati by the seizing authority. The petitioner filed an application before the Special Judge seeking release of the goods. The Special Judge by Annexure-H order allowed the auction to proceed. petitioner to quash Annexure-D letter of the 3rd respond n and h order passed by the Special Judge. 3. Section 6-E was incorporated in Essential Commodities Act by the Amendment Act 42 of 1986 and reads thus. The Special Judge by Annexure-H order allowed the auction to proceed. petitioner to quash Annexure-D letter of the 3rd respond n and h order passed by the Special Judge. 3. Section 6-E was incorporated in Essential Commodities Act by the Amendment Act 42 of 1986 and reads thus. "6-E. Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases.-Whenever any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto, or any package covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity is seized pending confiscation under section 6A, the Collector, or, as the case may be the State Government concerned under Section 6C shall have 'and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, any court, tribunal or other authority shall not have, jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution, of such essential commodity, package, covering, receptacle animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance." Section 6-E makes it clear that where an essential 'commodity is seized in pursuance of the order under Section 3, no Court, Tribunal or other authority shall have jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of such essential commodity, etc. This provision shall have fore notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force. 4. It is, therefore, clear that no Court, including the Court of the Special Judge before whom the F. I. R. is produced and who is ultimately to try the criminal case which maybe launched against the petitioner can pass an order regarding possession, delivery, dis­posal, release or distribution of the essential commodity. This has been made clear by the Supreme Court in a decision in State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Rameshwar Rathod, (1990) SCC 21. 5. The more important question relates to Annexure-D. It is not an order passed by the Collector. "Collector" is defined in Section 2 (a) as including an Additional Collector and such other officer, not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer, as may be authorised by the Collector to perform the functions and exercise the powers of the Collector under this Act. The more important question relates to Annexure-D. It is not an order passed by the Collector. "Collector" is defined in Section 2 (a) as including an Additional Collector and such other officer, not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer, as may be authorised by the Collector to perform the functions and exercise the powers of the Collector under this Act. The signatory to Ann­exure-D, namely, Deputy Director of Food & Civil Supplies, Gauhati does not style himself as Collector under the Act. It may be that he has been authorised by the Collector to perform the function of the Collector or it may be that he has not been so authorised. Even assuming that he is a Collector for the purpose of this Act, Annexure-D is not an order passed under Section 6-A (2) under which if the Collector is of the opinion that such essential commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or that it is otherwise exped­ient in the public interest to do so, he may order the same to be sold at the controlled price, if any, fixed for such essential comm­odities and where no such price is fixed, order the same to be sold by public auction. Annexure-D cannot be regarded as an order passed by the Collector under Section 6-A (2). It is only a letter written by the Deputy Director, Food & Civil Supplies, Gauhati (even assuming that he is authorised to discharge the function of the Co­llector) addressed to the Superintendent of Police requesting him to sell the commodities at fixed price. It does not indicate that the Officer formed the opinion requisite under Section 6-A (2). Since Annexure-D does not purport to have been passed under Section 6 A (2), it cannot be enforced. 6. Whether the goods seized in this case are required to be dealt with under Section 6-A (2) is for the statutory authority to decide if it has not already been decided. 7. We dispose of the writ petition declaring that Annexure-D dated 25.7.91 is not enforceable in law and further directing that it is open to the statutory authority to pass appropriate order, if deemed fit, under Section 6-A (2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. If an order has already been passed or if it is passed in future, the statutory authority shall supply a copy of order to the petitioner.