1. Vide these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.06.2016 passed by respondent No. 2 i.e. Controller General, IBM as Administering Authority appointed under Section 10 of the offshore Areas Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 2002 (herein after referred as OAMDR Act), whereby the respondent No. 2 has sought to annual the notification dated 07.06.2010 inviting applications for allotment of exploration license. As a result of the same, the respondent No. 2 has also annulled all the subsequent actions including the order dated 05.04.2011 by which the exploration licenses had been granted.

2. The facts and issues in the present petitions are same and similar, therefore, the present petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. The facts and page numbers shall be discussed with reference to Writ Petition No. 7537/2018, however, facts and other petitions shall not be repeated for the sake of brevity being similar.

3. The impugned order dated 30.06.2016 is broadly challenged on the following grounds:-

(a) The impugned order dated 30.06.2016 was without jurisdiction and ultra vires the statute as there is no power to review the order of grant under the OAMDR Act, 2002.

(b) The impugned order dated 30.06.2016 is vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice.

(c) The reasons provided in the impugned order dated 30.06.2016, to annul the notification dated 07.06.2010 viz. (i) that some blocks are allegedly overlapping with onshore area, (ii) prohibition on mining in CRZ area, are baseless.

4. The brief facts of the above-captioned cases are that the petitioners had initially filed W.P. No. 1529/2018 before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus for execution of the exploration license under the OAMDR Act, 2002, however, owing to certain subsequent events after the filing of the writ petition, the present petition is being preferred by way of abundant caution to also raise a challenge to the order dated 30.06.2016. Though the said order as of date does not exist owing to its having been set aside by this Court vide order dated 09.11.2017 in W.P. No. 5734/2016. The respondent No.1 is the Ministry of Mines through Secretary. The grievance in the present petitions is that due to various directions being issued by the said Ministry from time to time, which have finally culminated into the order dated 30.06.2016 and even after the aforesaid order was set aside, due to directions issued by the said Ministry, exploration licenses have not been executed with the petitioners. The Controller General of respondent No.2 was originally appointed as the administering authority for implementing provisions of the OAMDR Act, 2002 and the grant order dated 05.04.2011. However, passed impugned order dated 30.06.2016. The respondent No.3 is the authority that has currently been appointed as the Administrating Authority w.e.f. 06.04.2018.

5. OAMDR Act, 2002 was enacted in the year 2003 with a view to develop, regulate, exploit the mineral resources available in the territorial waters, continental shelf and other maritime zones of India so as to augment the national wealth. In exercise of powers under the said Act, the Offshore Areas Mineral Concession Rules, 2006 (hereinafter shall be referred as OAMC Rules, 2006) were framed to regulate the procedure for grant of operating rights in respect of such areas mentioned above. According to the said Act and the said Rules, it is clear that the following stages/phases are contemplated, which are as follows:-

(a)	Reconnaissance Permit	Stage I
(b)	Exploration License	Stage II
(c)	Production Lease	Stage III

6. The concept of exploration license and production lease are two separate and different forms of permissions/concessions. Whereas under the former, the licencee is only entitle