UNDER SECTION 26(2) OF THE COMPETITION ACT. 2002

The present information has been filed alleging that the practices followed by and agreements/arrangements between IDP Education Pty. Ltd. (Party No.2) and IDP Education India Pvt. Ltd. (Party No.3) in providing education services to the candidates seeking foreign education in Australia are anti competitive and Party No.3 is abusing its dominant position.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, given by Information Provider (IP) are as under:

2.1 The IP is a non-profit oriented association of counsellors in India promoting Australian Education by way of counseling and enrolling students for education courses in Australia. Its objective is to assure credibility of agents who are involved in counseling services for students on behalf of Australian Education and training institutions keeping in view interest of students going abroad.

2.2 The IP has submitted that M/s. IELTS Australia Pty. Ltd. (Party No.1), is a company incorporated under the laws of Australia and is one of the partners of International English Language Testing System (IELTS). Other partners of IELTS are the University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations and the British Council. Party No.1 is a subsidiary company of Party No.2.

2.3 The IP further submits that in the year 2002, Party No.1 also started to conduct the said test in India through Planet EDU Pvt. Ltd (Party No.4), under 'Test Centre Agreement' and the said arrangement continued till 30 September 2010. Hence, both Party No. 4 i.e. Planet EDU Pvt. Ltd and British Council were separately conducting these tests in India.

2.4 As per the IP, till September 2010 the prime business activities of IDP Australia or IDP India, in India was to offer counseling services and other related services to students similar to the services of members of the IP Association. But with the expiry of the 'Test Agreement' with Party No.4, they have ventured into conducting the tests by themselves along with providing the counseling services. For this Party No.3 was franchised to conduct these tests by Party No.2.

2.5 The IP alleges that in September 2010 the said Parties have entered into an agreement/arrangement with each other whereby Party No. 3 was franchised and made an authorized IELTS Test Centre for India apart from being a center for educational counseling business. The IP alleges that the said agreement/arrangement would create a monopoly by restricting the market access of counsellors in the market.

2.6 The IP further alleges that the Party No.3 is abusing its dominant position by representing to students as being the 'World's largest student placement and English Language Testing Service provider'. As per the IP, this assertion is not correct and is being made to restrict the competition in the business of educational counseling being carried by members of the Informant Association. The IP has alleged that the said parties are providing the same services as that of the members of the IP association free of cost to encourage the people to approach the test centre and take their advice.

3. The Commission considered the information in its different meetings held on 15.11.2010, 01.12.2010 and 22.12.2010. The Commission also perused all the material placed on record including the written submissions, affidavits etc. as well as heard the learned counsels of the IP.

4. On perusal of the documents placed on record, it is seen that the main grievance of the IP is that the Party No.3, which is an IELTS Test Center, is attempting to limit or restrict the educational counseling services to itself and thereby adversely affecting the competitive business interests of the IP association whose members are providing the services of educational counseling to the students intending to go to Australia.

5. It is noted that Party No.1, |ELTS Australia, is in the business of conducting tests alone whereas Party No.3 IDP India is engaged in the business of conducting tests as well as providing counseling ser