( ISSN 2277 - 9809 (online) ISSN 2348 - 9359 (Print) ) New DOI : 10.32804/IRJMSH

Impact Factor* - 6.2311


**Need Help in Content editing, Data Analysis.

Research Gateway

Adv For Editing Content

   No of Download : 143    Submit Your Rating     Cite This   Download        Certificate

CO-OPERATIVE FEDERALISM IN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS IN INDIA

    1 Author(s):  KRISHAN

Vol -  5, Issue- 7 ,         Page(s) : 389 - 398  (2014 ) DOI : https://doi.org/10.32804/IRJMSH

Abstract

Meaning of Cooperative Federalism Traditionally the federalism was more or less a dualistic polity "in which the federal and State governments. Pursued virtually independent courses of action during a period when government activity was in any case minimal". Federalism then consisted of "two separate federal and State stream flowing in distinct but closely parallel channels." This traditional dualistic approach to federalism has since been expounded by scholars like Dicey, freeman, Garran and has in more recent years been refined and justified by where.

1. D.J. Elazar, "Federal State Collaboration in the nineteenth century United States"Political Science Quarterly, vol. 79, 1964, p. 248-281.

2. J.P. Clark, The Rise of New Federalism, New York, Columbia University Press, 1938, p. 191

3. Dr.J.N. Paney Constitutional Law of India, 44th Edition Htpp://answer.ask.com

4. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

5. See M.J.c. vile, The structure of American Federalism, London, Oxford University Press, 1961; D.L. Elazar, The American partnership in the Nineteenth century United States, Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1962. 

6. The Const. of the U.S.A. Senate Doc., 14 (1953).

7. Akhilesh Prashad v. Union Territory of Mizoram, AIR 1981 SC 806 : (1981) 2 SCC 150.

8. Prithipal Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1413 : (1982) 3 SCC 140.

9. Hans Muller v. Supdt. Presidency Jail, Calcutta, AIR 1955 SC 367 : (1955) 1 SCR 1284.

10. List II, entry 24.

11. The Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, was enacted by the Parliament after such a declaration.

12. See Symposium on "should we change our constitution?" The illustrated weekly of India, March 17, 1974, p.25 See, Ram Jawaja Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549.

13. Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1982 SC 33 : (1982) 1 SCC 39.

14. Article 155.

15. Article 156 (1).

16. Report of the Study Team on Centre – State Relations, Vol. 1, 1968, p. 273.

17. B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu, JT 2001 (8) SC 40 at 66 : (2001) 7 SCC 231.

18. A.I.R 1969 S.C. 903 

19. K.K. Aboo v. Union of India, AIR 1965 Kerala 229i.

20. See State of Rajasthan & others v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1361.

21. See D.S. Garewal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1959 SC 512 : 1959 Supp. (1) SCR 792 

22. See Sec. 118 of the Australian Constitution Act.

23. S. Mohd. Ibrahim Hadher v. Madras, 21 STC (378) (1968).

24. See R. Venkitaraman v. Central Road Traffic Board, AIR 1953 TC 392.

25. Yousoof v. State, AIR 1969 Mys. 203.

*Contents are provided by Authors of articles. Please contact us if you having any query.






Bank Details