UNDER SECTION 26(2) OF THE COMPETITION ACT 2002

This information has been filed on 28-08-09 under section 19 of the Competition Act by M/s Quoprro Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai and Cox & King India Ltd alleging the abuse of dominance by the Ministry of External Affairs through the Consular Passport Visa Division (CPVD)

2. The facts of the case and allegations leveled by the informants are summarized hereunder,

2.1 M/S Quoprro Global Services Pvt. Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cox & King India Ltd., incorporated on May 16, 2008, for the purpose of carrying on the business of providing outsourced visa facilitation services

2.2 It has been stated by the informants that the opposite party namely, Ministry of External Affairs through the Consular Passport Visa Division (CPVD) decided some time in 2005-2006 to outsource the logistic and clerical services in order to smoothen the processing of visa applications at its foreign missions The visa processing services are set out in the request for proposal (RFP) issued by the opposite party through the concerned missions which are granted to the successful bidder for a period of 3 years. The visa processing services include distribution of visa application form, accepting visa applications along with the requisite fees, scrutinizing the application and supporting documents, entering the data of visa applications received, forwarding the completed visa applications to the Indian missions and collecting the processed applications and passports from the Indian mission and returning the same to the applicant.

2.3 It has been alleged that by the very nature of the said services the opposite party is the only purchaser of these services in India and has a complete monopoly over the market and is in position to operate entirely independently of normal market forces. From 2005 onwards, the opposite party issued about 20 RFPs for outsourcing the visa processing services. In October 2008, the opposite party released its RFP for outsourcing the said services for its mission in South Africa The RFP suddenly included a condition requiring 3 years experience in operating a Visa Centre of the opposite party and the handling of 100 applications per day on an annual average with the electronic data entry, The first informant protested and the RFP process was scrapped. In March 2009, a new RFP was released with a condition requiring a reduced experience clause of 1 year, but an increased minimum application count handling experience of 300 applications. The 1st informant applied and was disqualified.

2.4 The 1st informant had been successful in getting the contract for handling the said services from Indian High Commission, Singapore and operated successfully from January 2009. This was because there was no restrictive provision mentioned in the RFP for this contract.

2.5 In April 2009, a RFP was released for the said services for Indian Mission in Russia and subsequently amended in May 2009, which included an amended condition of 1 years experience and minimum application count handling of 250. The 1st informant was again excluded from the bid for the same.

2.6 A RFP was released for the said services for Indian Mission in Greece in or about May 2009 where there was no restrictive provision regarding years of experience or application count condition included in the RFP The 1st informant had been awarded the contract for visa processing services by the Indian High Commission in Greece on June 23, 2009.

2.7 In March 2009, the opposite party appears to have issued a communication to its Missions with a format to RFP which imposes a mandatory 1 year experience condition and a requirement for a minimum application count with some discretion to the Mission concerned,

2.8 In March 2009, the opposite party's Mission in Belgium issued an RFP for outsourcing visa processing services at its Belgium Mission The RFP included the provision and conditions in the following terms;-

"111 (b) The bidder must have exp