Abstract
Accountability is one of the characteristics of a responsible government. The dimensions of this principle include the set of public rights. But as far as administrative law and specifically administrative proceedings are concerned, in England, the mechanism of "judicial review" of administrative acts, despite its limitations, is an important way of holding the government accountable. "Judicial review" of administrative actions is a product of common law; It is a judicial initiative to ensure the legality of the decisions of the executive branch and public authorities. In fact, filing lawsuits before quasi-judicial authorities and "judicial review" lawsuits, which is the subject of this article, are mechanisms that exist in English common law to achieve administrative justice. "Judicial review" is specific to public law, and public interest obviously plays an important role in it, especially in the recognition and selection of judicial remedies by the court; including setting deadlines or imposing restrictions on oral evidence, and in most cases, the need to obtain permission to start proceedings. If these represent the "values" of public law, it should be said that they are all in the interest of the government and it is inconsistent with the principles that apply to the responsibility of the government in tort and contractual obligations. This article, in a descriptive way, seeks to describe these characteristics of "judicial review".