ADMINISTRATIVE appointments are internal decisions which normally have legal effect, ADMINISTRATIVE measures are so differents, but how dose not refer to citizens. In some legal systems internal decisions are not subject to judicial review. This article proves that ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE COURT has jurisdiction to ADMINISTRATIVE appointment, but given that this is not general decision which can n ot be Complain in Plenier Assembly. An ADMINISTRATIVE authority can not give a general effect to ADMINISTRATIVE appointments. Investigation into the legality of ADMINISTRATIVE appointments relates to the branchs of A.C.J. It requires adopt a new approach to Concept of beneficary, so reasonable interest criteria rather than other criteria.

One of the controversial issues regarding the jurisdiction of the ADMINISTRATIVE COURT of JUSTICE is to clarify the institutions under its jurisdiction. From the beginning of this COURT’s formation, there have been posited two approaches in this regard: first: restriction of the defendant to the executive power, and second: inclusiveness of the COURT’s jurisdiction to all of the institutions with the public power. This article while explaining the concept of government in the ADMINISTRATIVE claims, strengthens the latter approach as the desirable one. This study with a descriptive-analytical method and scrutiny on law and judicial precedent indicates that the first approach isn’t accepted by law and judicial precedent with the emphasis on the theory regarding the nature of ADMINISTRATIVE-executive actions of the institutions having public power. The approach of inclusiveness, not completely, but with some exceptions is also accepted by law. Although the defendant isn’t restricted to the executive power from the perspective of judicial precedent, but this viewpoint is also far from the second approach and all the institutions having public power aren’t under the jurisdiction of the COURT.

The legislator of the constitution, in Article 166 of the this law provides for the judiciary to issue reasoned and documentary judgments to legal and (statutory) material based on which the judgment was issued. The same legal assignment is mentioned in Article 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. The above principle has created a capacity in the Iranian judicial system, which greatly compensates for the lack of comprehensiveness of applicable laws in judicial proceedings. The reference to legal principles in judicial proceedings is practically carried out, although such citations are not considered to be justified in practice. On the other hand, the existence of conceptual ambiguity in the meaning (legal principles) and the basis of the legal system in Iran has also contributed to the principles of the written law in the non-citation or arbitrary citation of judges. Therefore, while designing the concepts and categorizing the principles of law and listing the features of these principles and differentiating them from other similar concepts, it has been tried to investigate the relationship between legal principles and other sources in the judicial system of Iran And by expressing the criteria for the systematic citation of these principles, the impact of the legal principles in general and the general legal principles in particular should be shown in the development of the ADMINISTRATIVE rights of the country. These studies indicate that the JUSTICE of the Supreme ADMINISTRATIVE COURT has a significant impact on the identification of the principles of ADMINISTRATIVE law and the development of these rights in the country.

The ever-increasing expansion of the activities of the government and the executive bodies shows the necessity of taking decisions and measures to organize ADMINISTRATIVE affairs and ensure the implementation of laws. Despite this necessity, in some cases, the institutions and their officials refuse to take the decision and action that they are obliged to do according to the law. Therefore, in addition to the ADMINISTRATIVE supervision foreseen in the laws, the judicial supervision of ADMINISTRATIVE acts is undeniable as one of the important and new challenges of ADMINISTRATIVE law in order to prevent the violation of citizens' rights.The uncertainty that exists in this context is whether the COURT of ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE as an ADMINISTRATIVE judge has the authority to supervise ADMINISTRATIVE omission or not? The following article, using the descriptive-analytical method, while explaining the concept of ADMINISTRATIVE omission, comes to the conclusion that, firstly, using the articles (10), (11) and (12) of the Law of the ADMINISTRATIVE COURT of JUSTICE has the authority to "cancel" and "mandate" and therefore can deal with the ADMINISTRATIVE omissions. Secondly, the legislator in 1402, while amending the law of the COURT of ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE, made the filing of a complaint in the COURT's branches subject to the initial reference to the institution and obliged the institutions to respond to the request of the applicants, which led to the regulation of ADMINISTRATIVE decision-making, Documenting and justifying decisions and reducing ADMINISTRATIVE omissions.

The ever-increasing expansion of the activities of the government and the executive bodies shows the necessity of taking decisions and measures to organize ADMINISTRATIVE affairs and ensure the implementation of laws. Despite this necessity, in some cases, the institutions and their officials refuse to take the decision and action that they are obliged to do according to the law. Therefore, in addition to the ADMINISTRATIVE supervision foreseen in the laws, the judicial supervision of ADMINISTRATIVE acts is undeniable as one of the important and new challenges of ADMINISTRATIVE law in order to prevent the violation of citizens' rights.The uncertainty that exists in this context is whether the COURT of ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE as an ADMINISTRATIVE judge has the authority to supervise ADMINISTRATIVE omission or not? The following article, using the descriptive-analytical method, while explaining the concept of ADMINISTRATIVE omission, comes to the conclusion that, firstly, using the articles (10), (11) and (12) of the Law of the ADMINISTRATIVE COURT of JUSTICE has the authority to "cancel" and "mandate" and therefore can deal with the ADMINISTRATIVE omissions. Secondly, the legislator in 1402, while amending the law of the COURT of ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE, made the filing of a complaint in the COURT's branches subject to the initial reference to the institution and obliged the institutions to respond to the request of the applicants, which led to the regulation of ADMINISTRATIVE decision-making, Documenting and justifying decisions and reducing ADMINISTRATIVE omissions.

Article 10 (2) of the Law on the Organization and Procedure of the ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE COURT determines the competence and ranges of the COURT's powers to deal with and investigate objections and complaints against the final decisions of exceptional ADMINISTRATIVE authorities. According to the analysis of the General Assembly of the COURT of ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE in decisions number 37, 38, 39 dated 1989/10/2 and also the branches of the COURT from paragraph 2 of Article 10, only real or legal persons of private law are allowed to file complaints and objections against final decisions. Exceptional ADMINISTRATIVE authorities and the legal persons of general law don’t have that kind of power.Recently, on 2020/7/14, according to the ,Uniform Judicial Precedent numbered 792 of the General Assembly of the Supreme COURT, the jurisdiction of the ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE COURT to review the appeal filed by the Regional State Water Company against the decision of the Commission for Groundwater Affairs is recognized. Now the question arises is that whether the Uniform Judicial Precedent No. 792 is exceptional and is only about appealing the indefinite opinions of the judge of the Groundwater Commission?

The personality of the plaintiff in the ADMINISTRATIVE COURT of JUSTICE is one of the questionable subject matters over ADMINISTRATIVE COURT of JUSTICE that affecting jurisdiction of that COURT. Since the establishment of the ADMINISTRATIVE COURT of JUSTICE, there has been a dispute over the question is the plaintiff affective, with regard to its private personality or public personality, in the acceptance of the claims in the COURT? And may the plaintiff observed, with regard to its private personality, as diagnosis criterion for the actionable claims in the COURT?This article tries to examine the subject matter from the perspective of law, doctrine and judicial proceeding and to criticize the under consideration theories in doctrine and the approach that accepted by judicial proceeding. It attempts, therefore, to yield a right approach to the subject.

The COURT of ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE as the sole ADMINISTRATIVE public judiciary forum has a unique role in its function to judicially observe and control the government activities. Safeguarding the people's rights against a powerful government necessitates the establishment of an independent and capable institute for harnessing the Government's power and ensuring that such power would not encroach upon the people's rights.The significance of this led to the establishment of the COURT of ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE which is laid down in Article 173 of the Constitution and the formation of which is set out in the 1980 Act on the constitution of the COURT of ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE.No doubt 25 years of judicial work and experience - during which the COURT has been able to secure a balance between the power of the Government in performing its duty and protection of the people's rights - has earned the COURT a high stature in the country.Yet, this is less than what is expected from a forum like the COURT of ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE with such a significant purpose and function as those mentioned above. The need for enhancing the efficient performance of the COURT and expanding the area of its competence were among the many issues which were suggested to rectify its weakness and which they found their place in the new Act of 2006. In the new Act, which contains 49 Articles, most shortcomings were overcome. Nevertheless, there are still many problems which the Act has failed to address. Not to mention but a few is the COURT's jurisdiction and the need for its modification. Furthermore, the delphic structure of the text and its lack of clarity has acted as a stumbling block to the efficient functioning of the COURT. The question of legal precedent and its retroactive effect is another daunting point which the Act has not been able to overcome and which is in sharp contrast with the principles of law.In a nutshell, the new Act and the process of its ratification and the seriousness of the challenge which it brings to certain legal precedents leaves one no alternative but to question the legitimacy of the Act and its progressiveness.

The Supreme COURT, is at the top of COURTs in the hierarchy of the Iranian COURTs. Article 161 of the Constitution, stated monitors the proper implementation of laws in COURTs and the creation of a unified judicial system is authority for this institution. Also, Ordinary law, provides specific jurisdictions for Supreme COURT, such as resolving disputes over the jurisdiction. Given the ambiguities and deficiencies about relations between Supreme COURT and the ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE COURT, this article explores the ratios of these COURTs in a descriptive-analytical format. The studies showed that the ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE COURT as a special tribunal is in the hierarchy below the Supreme COURT and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme COURT Country. Also, the ordinary legislator's approach was identified in recognizing the Supreme COURT's role in resolving jurisdiction disputes between the COURTs consistent with the Supreme COURT's position. To this end, a specialist structural prediction on matters relating to public law in the Supreme COURT is proposed.

The principle of "individuality of the effect of judicial decisions" is considered one of the procedural principles and one of the dimensions of protection from the substantive aspect of judicial independence. Based on this principle, the decisions issued by the COURTs are effective only in the rights and duties of the people involved in the proceedings and are ineffective for other people. Considering that the absolute acceptance of this principle in some cases may lead to differences in procedures and as a result inJUSTICE, Article 161 of the Constitution has established the authority to issue unanimity votes to the Supreme COURT in order to solve this issue. Despite this importance in the legislative approach regarding the COURT of ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE in general and the recent reforms of the COURT Law in particular, the legislator has considered the votes issued by the branches and boards of this institution to have a specific and general effect, contrary to the aforementioned legal principle. Among these provisions is Article 93 of the Law of the ADMINISTRATIVE COURT of JUSTICE, which considers the opinions of specialized boards and general boards in the capacity of handling complaints against government approvals to be valid and criteria for ADMINISTRATIVE and judicial bodies and authorities. The review of the legislative approach mentioned in this article showed that although the standardization of the COURT's decisions may have merits, the obligation of judicial and ADMINISTRATIVE bodies and authorities to follow the decisions of the general board in handling complaints against government regulations, with fundamental issues various, including the jurisdiction of judicial interpretation (subject of Article 73), the supervision of the speaker of the parliament over government regulations (subject of Article 138), the substantive dimension of the principle of judicial independence and the statistics of the sources of issuing a decision (subject of Article 167) and The jurisdiction of COURT judges in reviewing government regulations (the subject of Article 170) is not harmonized.