Traditionally, the issue of standing is interpretive broadly today compared to the old time. Due to the new legislation of some environmental protection statutes, including Air Pollution Prevention Act § 74, Soil and Underground Water Pollution Prevention Act § 49 and Waste Cleaning Act § 72, the environmental group is able to sue the government for the enforcement of legal duties under the statutes. In addition, the Interpretation of Judicial Yuan announced the doctrine of statutory interest to enlarge the scope of people’s interest to be protected. The changing of legislation and Judicial Interpretation contributes to more administrative remedies (includingthird party) could have asserted in respect of standing issue, i.e. An injury in fact standard can be used to replace the standard of statutory interest at stake. As to the doctrine of one time judgment for those whom have same interest in civic litigation should be used more cautious in administrative litigation and can be addressed by third party to participate the litigation. This paper undertakes a comparative study between Taiwan and U.S. in respect of standing issue as well as mootness in administrative litigation. This study poses a new standard of injury in fact for judicial decision on the issue of standing in Taiwan. Also, whether the outcome of the litigation is sufficient to provide remedies for the party is stressed to c1arifyissue of standing and mootness. The judicial review of administrative action is the last resort for people to defense their right against government invasion. It is import to ease the thread hood of administrative litigation to protect the people’s right otherwise would be injured by the government without remedies.