ISLAMABAD: Some elite private schools have refused to provide information to the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) after it launched an inquiry into parents’ complaints against increased fees. “The CCP has sought detailed information from 123 schools of the last one month out of which 12 renowned chains of elite schools are not providing the required information and making deliberate effort to cause delay in the findings of the ongoing inquiry,” official sources in the Finance Division confirmed to The News on Friday. One school chain had also approached the Lahore High Court (LHC) to bar the CCP for conducting the inquiry by taking plea that education was a provincial subject that did not come under the jurisdiction of the federal agency but the court declined to grant them stay. Despite this defeat, some elite schools are still reluctant to share information even after getting them reminders. However, there are some school chains which have already shared full details with the commission. When contacted, CCP high-ups said the inquiry was underway which was expected to be completed by end October or early November paving way for issuance of show cause notices in case of any wrongdoing. The CCP had initiated a probe to ascertain whether there is any anti-competitive behavior or use of dominance in violation of competition law existed or it was just routine where schools raised their fees as annual phenomena. The commission, the sources said, was collecting information to ensure protection of “innocent consumers” in shape of millions of students, as they became captive audience where parents found it quite hard to continue getting education for their children because of huge financial cost involved. The sources said the CCP was not price control agency rather they encouraged entrepreneurs to earn profits but there must be some economic rationale behind their profits. The CCP would analyze anti-competitive behavior from all aspects during its ongoing inquiry and would only proceed further if it found something really substantial that could even be proved in the highest court of law. It is pertinent to mention that Section 3 of the Act that deals with the abuse of dominance prohibits unreasonable increase in prices by dominant market players, while Section 4 of the Act that pertains to prohibited agreements bars collective fixing of prices by competitors.
