Since you have not provided the actual content of a specific case regarding Article 166 of the Constitution of India, I will provide a hypothetical example based on a common type of dispute related to Article 166. This will illustrate the format I would use if you provided the case details.

Short Summary

This case concerns the validity of a government order issued under Article 166 of the Constitution. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that it was not properly authenticated and did not reflect the decision of the Governor. The Court held that while Article 166 provides a procedure for authenticating government orders, substantial compliance is sufficient and the order was valid.

Facts

The State Government issued a notification regarding land acquisition for a public project. The notification was signed by a Secretary to the Government but did not explicitly state that it was issued "by order of the Governor." The petitioner, a landowner affected by the acquisition, challenged the notification, claiming it violated Article 166.

Issues

1. Whether the notification was validly issued under Article 166 of the Constitution.
2. Whether the absence of the phrase "by order of the Governor" invalidates the notification.
3. Whether the notification reflects the decision of the Governor.

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner argued that the notification was invalid because it did not explicitly state that it was issued "by order of the Governor," as required by Article 166. They contended that this omission raised doubts about whether the Governor had actually approved the notification. They also argued that the state failed to prove the order was actually approved by the Governor.

Respondent's Arguments

The State argued that the notification was valid because it was signed by a Secretary to the Government, which is sufficient evidence of authentication. They argued that substantial compliance with Article 166 is enough and that the omission of the specific phrase was a mere technicality. They also presented evidence to show the Governor had approved the notification.

Court's Reasoning

The Court observed that Article 166 is directory, not mandatory. The Court emphasized that the purpose of Article 166 is to ensure that government orders are duly authenticated and that the government's actions are transparent. The Court found that the signature of the Secretary to the Government provided sufficient authentication. The Court also considered the evidence presented by the State showing the Governor's approval, concluding that the notification reflected the decision of the Governor. The Court noted that insisting on a strict literal interpretation of Article 166 would lead to unnecessary technical challenges to government actions.

Conclusion

The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the notification was validly issued under Article 166. The Court ruled that substantial compliance with Article 166 is sufficient and that the absence of the phrase "by order of the Governor" did not invalidate the notification, given the evidence of the Governor's approval and the signature of the Secretary. No relief was granted to the petitioner.