JUDGMENT Hari Swarup, J. - This petition has been filed for quashing an order issued by the District Magistrate in purported exercise of power under Section 54-A(1) of the U.P. Municipalities Act. By this order the District Magistrate appointed Ram Yaga Singh, Deputy Collector, Ghazipur to exercise and perform the powers and functions of the President, Municipal Board, Ghazipur on his behalf with effect from 6-12-1974 until a President or Vice-President was elected by the Board. 2. The facts leading to the passing of the order are as follows : "A motion of no confidence was passed against the President of the Municipal Board on October 1, 1273. On December 6, 1973 two Vice-Presidents were elected. Sri B.N. Verma was elected as a Senior Vice-President and Sri V.N. Maheshwari was elected as junior Vice-President. The term of office of the Vice-President under Section 54 is of one year, Sri Maheshwari resigned on November 25, 1974. On December 4, 1974, Ballabh Das Agarwal, the present petitioner was elected junior Vice-President. On December 5, 1974 the District Magistrate passed the impugned order." 3. Under Section 54-A the District Magistrate can exercise the power provided there is no elected President and there is also no elected Vice-President or there is Vice-President who is unable to function. According to the respondents, the term of Mr. Verma had expired on December 5, 1973 and the election of the petitioner was invalid as it had been made by a special resolution without following the procedure prescribed by sub sections (2) to (9) of Section 4-A of the Municipalities Act. According to the respondents, therefore, contingency existed for taking action under Section 54 A (1) of the Act. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners election on December 4, 1974 was an election cade in accordance with law and contingency by Section 54-A (1) did not exist. It is not denied by the respondents that if the election of the petitioner was valid, the contingency did not exist. The only question, therefore, to be determined is whether the petitioner was validly elected or not. 4. It is not denied by the respondents that if the election of the petitioner was valid, the contingency did not exist. The only question, therefore, to be determined is whether the petitioner was validly elected or not. 4. According to the respondents every election of the Vice-President has to take place in accordance with the procedure laid down in sub-sections (2) to (9) of Section 54-A, while according to the petitioner these sub-sections apply only when contingency contemplated by Section 74-A(1) has come to exist and a Vice-President has to be elected, otherwise the Vice-President can be elected by a special resolution of the Board. 5. Section 54-A was introduced for the first time by U.P. Act No. 1 of 1955. Sub-Section (1) of Section 54-A reads as under:- "Where person on being elected President fails or refuses to function or is otherwise not able to function, and a Vice-President has not been elected in accordance with this Act, the powers and functions of the President except presiding at a meeting of the Board shall, until a Vice-President has been elected, be exercised and performed, if the District Magistrate so directs and subject to such conditions as he may specify, by the Executive Officer and in the case of a Board where there is no Executive Officer, by the Secretary, and the following procedure shall be followed for the election of a Vice-President." The words in this sub section show that the powers were o be exercised till the Vice-President had been elected. Sub sections following sub-section(1) prescribe procedure for the election of the Vice-President. Section 54 A therefore appears to have been introduced for the purpose of providing for a contingency. Contingency being the absence of the President and an elected Vice-President. A method of filling in the vacancy of Vice-President was provided to meet the contingency. 6. In 1964 by the U.P. Municipalities Amendment Act, 1964, sub section (1) of Section 54 A was substituted by the following sub-section : "(1) Provision for exercise of powers, ate. of President in certain contingencies and procedure for election of Vice-President. A method of filling in the vacancy of Vice-President was provided to meet the contingency. 6. In 1964 by the U.P. Municipalities Amendment Act, 1964, sub section (1) of Section 54 A was substituted by the following sub-section : "(1) Provision for exercise of powers, ate. of President in certain contingencies and procedure for election of Vice-President. - Where a person on being elected President fails or refused to function or is otherwise not able to function, ora casual vacancy occurs in the office of the President within the meaning of Section 44-A, and no Vice-President has been elected in accordance with this Act, or there is no Vice-President otherwise able to function, the powers and functions of the President is able to function, be exercised and performed by the District Magistrate or by a gazetted officer not be law the rank of a Deputy Collector appointed by the District Magistrate in this behalf." 7. The material changes introduced through 1961 amendment are : (1) a heading has been given to the sub-section, (2) instead of the words "until a Vice-President has been elected", the 'Words "until a President or Vice-President is able to function" have been substituted and (3) the words "and the following procedure shall be followed for the election of Vice-President" have been omitted. The omission of these last words was probably because they were found to be redundant as the procedure already existed for election of Vice-President in sub sections (2) to (9). The heading of sub-section is quite relevant. The introduction of the words provision for exercise of powers, etc. of President in certain contingencies and procedure of election of Vice-President shows that the contents of Section 54-A deals with the exercise of powers of President in certain contingencies and the procedure for election for Vice-President in those contingencies. 8. It does not appear that the intention of introducing Section 54-A was to change the normal procedure for the election of a vice-President Normal procedure for the election of Vice-President is the election by a special resolution as provided by Sections 54 of the Act Sections 87 and 88 of the Act provide for the requirement of a special resolution. According to the proviso of Section 87 a prior notice of the intention to transact a business required to be transacted by special resolution has to be given. According to the proviso of Section 87 a prior notice of the intention to transact a business required to be transacted by special resolution has to be given. According to Section 88, for a special resolution there has to be a quorum of not less than one-half of the members of the Board. Section 92(2) of the Act provides that in case of equality of votes, the President of the meeting shall have a second or casting vote. The proviso of ' sub-section (2) of Section 88 provides for adjournment of a meeting. The procedure prescribed for election of a Vice President in Section 54-A (2) to (9) is different. It provides for calling of a meeting by the District Magistrate. It is to be presided over by a Civil Judicial Officer and there is no provision for quorum or adjournment The purpose of giving authority to the District Magistrate to call a meeting and authorising the Civil Judicial Officer to preside over the meeting appears to provide for the contingency contemplated by sub section (1) of Section 54-A. When there is no President. available for acting as such and there is also no Vice-President able to function, the meeting has to be called by some one else and has to be presided over by some body else. It is to provide for this contingency that the District Magistrate, who has to take over on the contingency arising, has been given power to call a meeting and to get it presided over by a Civil Judicial Officer. 9. If aid can be taken from the legislative debates, it would appear that at the time of consideration of the bill in December 1954 the purpose of introducing Section 54-A along with the provisions for election of Vice-President was to meet the particular contingency. It is no doubt true that the legislative proceedings cannot be taken in aid to interpret a statute; but, as observed by Fazl Ali J, in Charaniji Lal Chowdkury v. The Union of India ( AIR 1951 SC 41 ), they are relevant for the proper understanding of the reasons which necessitated the enactment. Here a reading of the provisions of Section 54-A shows that the purpose of election of Vice-President in the manner prescribed therein is to meet the special contingency. Legislative proceedings confirm this interpretation which is otherwise apparent. 10. Here a reading of the provisions of Section 54-A shows that the purpose of election of Vice-President in the manner prescribed therein is to meet the special contingency. Legislative proceedings confirm this interpretation which is otherwise apparent. 10. Normally sub sections of a section have to be read as part of an integral whole and have to be taken as inter-dependant unless there is something to show that a sub-section of a particular section is meant to be independent of other sub-section. Normally the rule of interpretation is that all sub-sections are treated as leading to one particular purpose. Sub sections (2) to (9) appear to be necessary aids for achieving the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 54-A which is meant to provide for a contingency. Sub-sections (2) to (9) must, there-fore, be held to be integral parts of Section 54-A along with sub-section (1) thereof. Section 54-A being special provision to meet a particular contingency, the method of election of the Vice-President provided under sub-sections (2) to (9) must be held to be applicable only when the contingency comes into existence. 11. The election of the petitioner on 4th December, 1974 as Vice-President of the Board cannot, therefore, be held to be invalid. And, as on December 5, 1974 he was able to function as Vice-President, the contingency for taking action under Section 54-A was non-existent when the impugned order was passed. The impugned order con not accordingly be sustained. 12. In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 5th December, 1974 passed by the District Magistrate under Section 54-A of the Municipalities Act is quashed. In the circumstances of the case parties will bear their own costs.