The error of the administrative authority is one of the causes of the judicial review under the heading of "illegality"and also in the circle of the concept of "ultravires".One kind of errors is error of fact,which means that the official has been mistaken in identifying the issue of compliance with legal grounds.Under UK law,courts are more involved in supervising cases because they believe that the court often has expertise to identify and They do not determine the status of the subject and only the jurisdictional error are reviewable.But in the new approach,if there is an“objective right answer”and an“manifest error of fact”is made,it is reviewable whether it is jurisdiction or non-jurisdiction error.In the French legal system,all types of error of law,including mistakes in the material basis of the subject,compliance with the lawfulness of the law,and the lack of proportionality between the object of the decision and the issue,is reviewable.In Iranian law,due to the lack of recognition of error concept in administrative law of Iran and its definition in the laws,in the judicial review of the Administrative Court,there is no annulment of the resolution simply because of the error of the administrative office, and also the explicit decision based on the mistake of the administrative office among the votes There are no AJC Divisions.It seems likely that a thorough legal doctrine based on British and French law and jurisprudential texts would provide grounds for amending the law of the Court and the possibility ofadministrative courts appearing on the basis of error.

Administrative official’s abuse of power and error are types of illegality as one of the causes of judicial review in the legal systems of England, France and Iran, that in which an official, despite the legal power and action within its jurisdiction and in accordance with the appearance of the law, but he breaks the law within his jurisdiction; therefore, the content of the decision, its motive and purpose must be examined. The important issue in this research is that, given the unitary basis of these two concepts in judicial review, how can a judicial reviewer makes difference between these two concepts in the context of judicial review. It seems to distinguish between these two concepts through judicial review, it is necessary to consider the definitions of these concepts; in this research by descriptive –analytical review method and comparative study, these two concepts were studied in the legal systems of England, France and Iran and in conclusion the difference between the two concepts in judicial review are resulted from conceptual differences;  in this way that one of the essential elements in the abuse of power is the failure to fulfill the intended purpose of the legislator, despite the knowledge of the goal of the legislator and the deliberate failure to implement it; Now, what is its purpose and motive for providing personal interests such as private gain, third party benefit ,or for personal retaliation or for the purpose of generating public benefit, but in error, the administrative official exercises this power in a non-purposeful manner, against the legislator intend, and believes that a strong suspicion of the correctness of his actions and the correctness of his imagination

Error is instances of illegality,although there is a strong belief in the validity of the act,but judicial review of it can be accompanied by enforcement and judicial remedies.The court,in addition to the Certiorari in error of law  cases in the verdict,can replace the true decision.The prohibitory order can only be made after the decision has been made by the public authority in order to prevent its execution.The mandatory order is best when public officials,as a result of inaccurate interpretation of their legal jurisdiction,disqualify them from exercising their jurisdiction,requiring their judicial authority to enforce or refuse to enforce legal jurisdiction or to re-examine it.The injunction for preventing a public official Use of the action in an illegal manner or out of the scope of his authority or obligation to perform his duty.The judicial declaration be used to declare that a decision or action by an official is illegal and outside of the scope of the mandate,including the announcement of a forward-looking judicial statement indicating the correct meaning of the legal regulation,Preventing the receiver from making similar errors in the future.Compensation has been imposed on the General Court after the occurrence of the violation.